[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 74 (Friday, May 25, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5695-S5712]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Johnson, Mrs.
Murray, and Mr.Wellstone):
S. 966. A bill to amend the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration Organization Act to encourage deployment of
broadband service to rural America; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I rise, along with Senator Daschle,
Senator Johnson, Senator Murray, and Senator Wellstone to introduce the
Rural Broadband Enhancement Act to deploy broadband technology to rural
America. As the demand for high speed Internet access grows, numerous
companies are responding in areas of dense population. While urban
America is quickly gaining high speed access, rural America is, once
again, being left behind. Ensuring that all Americans have the
technological capability is essential in this digital age. It is not
[[Page S5696]]
only an issue of fairness, but it is also an issue of economic
survival.
To remedy the gap between urban and rural America, this legislation
gives new authority to the Rural Utilities Service in consultation with
NTIA to make low interest loans to companies that are deploying
broadband technology to rural America. Loans are made on a company
neutral and a technology neutral basis so that companies that want to
serve these areas can do so by employing technology that is best suited
to a particular area. Without this program, market forces will pass by
much of America, and that is unacceptable.
This issue is not a new one. When we were faced with electrifying all
of the country, we enacted the Rural Electrification Act. When
telephone service was only being provided to well-populated
communities, we expanded the Rural Electrification Act and created the
Rural Utilities Service to oversee rural telephone deployment. The
equitable deployment of broadband services is only the next step in
keeping America connected, and our legislation would ensure that.
If we fail to act, rural America will be left behind once again. As
the economy moves further and further towards online transactions and
communications, rural America must be able to participate.
Historically, our economy has been defined by geography, and we in
Congress were powerless to do anything about it. Where there were
ports, towns and businesses got their start. Where there were railroad
tracks, towns and businesses grew up around them. The highway system
brought the same evolution.
But the Internet is changing all of that. No longer must economic
growth be defined by geographic fiat. Telecommunications industries and
policy-makers are proclaiming, ``Distance is dead!'' But, that's not
quite right: Distance will be dead, only as long as Congress ensures
that broadband services are available to all parts of America, urban
and rural.
I look forward to working with my colleagues colleagues to pass this
legislation and give rural America a fair chance to survive.
______
By Mr. BOND.
S. 967. A bill to establish the Military Readiness Investigation
Board, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very important
matter of national security.
Today many thousands of Americans are spread across the globe
defending our national interest and those of our close friends and
allies.
While risking their lives to keep America safe, American soldiers
sailors, airmen and marines are not as ready for combat as they should
be.
History has taught us that the more prepared we are for war, the less
likely potential enemies will be to risk war in pursuit of their own
national objectives.
Our ability to prevail in war is, therefore, one of the most critical
elements of our deterrence strategy.
That is why I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe will
help us improve the combat readiness of our armed forces. Doing so will
strengthen America's standing and security in the world and contribute
to global stability.
In recent years the topic of military readiness has received far more
words than deeds. In all candor, we have talked this issue to death
without being able to deliver for the troops who need our help.
I think I know why. Words are far cheaper than the actions needed to
restore a sharp edge to our combat forces.
We know that we have problem with military readiness. It seems that
every time we peel back the cheery assessments and closely examine the
issue, we find that our military readiness is worse than advertised.
Let me offer just a few examples.
Today, the readiness level of too many of our aviation combat units
is being maintained through cannibalization. One plane is striped of
parts to keep others flying. The only problem with that is the practice
actually accelerates the destruction of our combat readiness. A recent
Navy investigation stated ``current readiness levels are being achieved
through extensive cannibalization and the rates are increasing in every
community we visited.''
In other words, we have a bunch of hangar queens that have been
robbed of parts and are not able to fly to provide the practice or to
carry out the missions for which they were intended. Because of a
shortage in money, our fliers are going into harm's way with outdated
electronic intelligence files. The Navy E-2C Hawkeyes carry
intelligence files that, in some case, are between 5 and 9 years old.
The electronic intelligence files aboard the EA-6B Prowler planes, our
jammers, are updated only on a 2-to-6-year cycle. The missiles we use
to kill enemy radars are not being updated with new electronic
intelligence parametric files.
The Army's Third Infantry Division based at Fort Stewart Georgia was
recently dropped to the second lowest readiness rating. Just over a
year ago, two other Army divisions, the 10th Mountain and First
Mechanized Division were briefly dropped to the lowest readiness
rating--meaning they were unready for war. These are three of the
Army's ten active duty divisions.
The Marine Corps cannot replace its antiquated equipment because it
has to steal money from its modernization account to keep its combat
edge sharp.
Sadly, there is an endless parade of anecdotal evidence. And too
often, the anecdotal reports that leak to the press are far more
accurate indictors of the true state of military readiness than the
Pentagon's own internal reporting system.
The evidence strongly suggests we have not kept faith with our troops
who risk their lives for us. And that is our top obligation--to keep up
our part of the social compact with our servicemen and women, in
exchange for their willingness to risk their lives we promise to equip
and train our troops so they may quickly prevail in combat with as few
casualties as possible.
While we know all to well the problem we face, we have yet to build a
national consensus of the solution. And make no mistake, that is what a
problem of this scale requires--a national consensus.
To do that, we need an objective assessment of military readiness
conducted by non-partisan, military experts. It would measure the
current state of our U.S. military readiness and also examine the
effectiveness of the Pentagon's current readiness reporting system.
Much like the CIA required an outside panel of ``Team B'' experts
during the 1970s, I believe the Pentagon desperately needs an outside
group of experts to look at the readiness books.
I believe that this review will help senior Pentagon officials obtain
the most accurate picture possible of the true state of military
readiness today.
Such a measurement will also help Congress build a baseline
understanding of military readiness that we must have if we are to
begin funding the military's operations and maintenance accounts at a
sufficient level.
Let me just say this: Secretary Rumsfeld's decision to reexamine our
national military strategy, force structure and procurement strategy is
the right thing to do. Indeed, it is long overdue and I commend the
administration for its commitment to this effort.
This is very important, but we cannot overlook combat readiness as
the most critical index of our Nation's ability to defend itself, our
interests and our allies' interests. Strategic competitors pay close
attention to reports of deteriorating U.S. military readiness and we
must not embolden them by ignoring these reports ourselves.
Many military experts have also contended that many of the military's
readiness problems would disappear if the Pentagon dropped its plans to
fight and win two major regional wars at one time. However, some say
that the Nation's ability to wage major wars on two fronts acts as an
important deterrent to potentially hostile states like North Korea.
Secretary Rumsfelds' review coupled with a military readiness review
panel should enable us for once to answer effectively and address these
issues--to come up with the right balance and solutions for our troops
and for our Nation.
The readiness system is intended to pinpoint war-fighting
deficiencies in every unit's equipment, transportation system,
personnel and training. By many accounts this system is arcane
[[Page S5697]]
and inflexible and does not accurately depict the true state of
readiness. It is time we reviewed this system and developed means to
keep it the predictive and useful tool it was designed and intended to
be.
While we await the results of Secretary Rumsfeld's reviews, we
already know that we have a persistent readiness problem that
exacerbates other problems within the U.S. military, like manpower
levels and morale.
In a monthly readiness report the defense department sent to Congress
in March, there was a list of ``strategic concerns'' about military
readiness. This report indicated that despite some leveling off of
declines in wartime preparedness, there is still an uphill battle to be
fought to ensure U.S. Forces are ready for major operations. This
report states that aviation readiness remains challenged by ``reduced
aircraft mission-capable rates, parts shortages, and technical
surprises and maintenance issues.''
Readiness involves very many distinct issues. First, it's making sure
that we're providing the resources needed to maintain readiness.
Second, it's making sure that we are gathering the right data and
information so that we've got true pictures of readiness. Third, it's
dealing quickly and effectively with readiness issues when they're
detected.
Several weeks ago I released an article describing the legislation I
am proposing here. As a result, I have received numerous letters from
constituents reiterating the need for this review board and citing
examples of why it should be done. One letter was sent by a women who
has a daughter and two friends who are serving on various Navy bases.
In her letter she describes a situation where there are not enough
spare parts to go around. Nothing new--except this effects her
personally and causes her to worry constantly about her family and
friends because they are spread too thin and lack the spare parts to do
their job, thereby endangering them needlessly.
At the end of the cold war, force structure and personnel end
strength were drastically cut in all the services. At the same time,
the Nation discovered that the post-cold war world is a complex,
dangerous place. As a result, deployments for contingency operations,
peacekeeping missions, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and
counter-terrorism operations increased dramatically and our dependence
on the armed services for their deployments continues to grow.
While our military forces got smaller, they did not become more ready
for combat. In fact, our peak military readiness was reached
immediately following Desert Storm in 1991 and has slowly and steadily
declined since.
And that is inexcusable for a superpower. We have a responsibility to
our citizens and to countless millions around the world whose physical
safety and economic and political stability is guaranteed because of
our military strength.
The world looks to us, and so as I review this military readiness
problem and search for a solution I am guided by the simple notion that
our strength guarantees global peace. Our military strength provides
the foundation for the global economy and provides the economic and
political stability for so many parts of the world. This understanding
must guide our efforts as we seek to rebuild our military to prevail in
our next war.
Our own history during this century has shown us that when we try to
judge our military by its cost-efficiency during peacetime we invite
disaster. This happened at the outset of the Second World War in North
Africa. And we saw it again when Task Force Smith was shredded by the
North Koreans in 1950.
How may times must we relearn the lesson that the only true measure
of military effectiveness is performance in wartime?
I commend to my colleagues a brilliant editorial in the Wall Street
Journal by Mark Helprin. He writes of the myopic view of peacetime
civilians charged with budgeting their militaries. ``God save the
American soldier from those who believe that his life can be protected
and his mission accomplished on the cheap,'' wrote Mr. Helprin. ``For
what they perceive as extravagance is always less costly in lives and
treasure than the long drawn-out wars it deters or shortens with quick
victories.''
I should explain that the bill I have introduced establishes a
commission to be appointed by the Secretary of Defense with the
concurrence of the chairs and ranking members of the authorizing
appropriations committees to look at the issues of readiness and to be
sure that they report to the Congress and to the United States, No. 1,
on the status of readiness and, No. 2, on the reliability, or lack
thereof, in the system set up to determine readiness.
I respect the great work being done by the Readiness Subcommittee of
the Armed Services Committee. I have spoken with the chair and ranking
members. We want to be a supplement to and a sounding board, perhaps,
to provide a louder microphone or megaphone for the information
determined in that Readiness Subcommittee.
I hope my colleagues will look at this measure and join me in
sponsoring it. I am pleased to ask unanimous consent that the
distinguished occupant of the chair, the Senator from Kansas, Mr.
Roberts, be listed as a cosponsor.
I invite other colleagues who have an interest in this to look at it
and join with me. I hope and trust we can have a strong bipartisan
effort to achieve something which should be the goal and the objective
of all of us.
I ask unanimous consent that two articles be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, April 24, 2001]
The Fire Next Time
(By Mark Helprin)
From Alexandria in July of 1941, Randolph Churchill
reported to his father as the British waited for Rommel to
attack Egypt. In the midst of a peril that famously
concentrated mind and spirit, he wrote, ``You can see
generals wandering around GHQ looking for bits of string.''
Apparently these generals were not, like their prime
minister, devoted to Napoleon's maxim, ``Frappez la masse, et
le reste vient par surcroit,'' which, vis-a-vis strategic or
other problems, bids one to concentrate upon the essence,
with assurance that all else will follow in train, even bits
of string.
Those with more than a superficial view of American
national security, who would defend and preserve it from the
fire next time, have by necessity divided their forces in
advocacy of its various elements, but they have neglected its
essence. For the cardinal issue of national security is not
China, is not Russia, is not weapons of mass destruction, or
missile defense, the revolution in military affairs,
terrorism, training, or readiness. It is, rather, that the
general consensus in regard to defense since Pearl Harbor--
that doing too much is more prudent than doing too little--
has been destroyed. The last time we devoted a lesser
proportion of our resources to defense, we were well
protected by the oceans, in the midst of a depression, and
without major international responsibilities, and even then
it was a dereliction of duty.
The destruction is so influential that traditional
supporters of high defense spending, bent to the will of
their detractors, shrink from argument, choosing rather to
negotiate among themselves so as to prepare painstakingly
crafted instruments of surrender.
A leader of defense reform, whose life mission is to defend
the United States, writes to me: ``Please do not quote me
under any circumstances by name. . . . Bush has no chance of
winning the argument that more money must be spent on
defense. Very few Americans feel that more money needs to be
spent on defense and they are right. The amount of money
being spent is already more than sufficient.''
More than sufficient to fight China? It is hard to think of
anything less appealing than war with China, but if we don't
want that we must be able to deter China, and to deter China
we must have the ability to fight China. More than sufficient
to deal with simultaneous invasions of Kuwait, South Korea,
and Taiwan? More than sufficient to stop even one incoming
ballistic missile? Not yet, not now, and, until we spend the
money, not ever.
For someone of the all-too-common opinion that a strong
defense is the cause of war, a favorite trick is to advance a
wholesale revision of strategy, so that he may accomplish his
depredations while looking like a reformer. This pattern is
followed instinctively by the French when they are
in alliance and by the left when it is trapped within the
democratic order. But to do so one need be neither French
nor on the left.
Neville Chamberlain, who was neither, starved the army and
navy on the theory that the revolution in military affairs of
his time made the only defense feasible that a ``Fortress
Britain'' protected by the Royal Air Force--and then failed
in building up the air force. Bill Clinton, who is not
French, and who came into office calling for the
discontinuance of heavy echelons in favor of power
projection, simultaneously pressed for a severe reduction in
aircraft carriers, the sine qua non of power projection.
Later, he and his strategical toadies embraced the revolution
in military affairs not for its virtues
[[Page S5698]]
but because even the Clinton-ravished military ``may be
unaffordable,'' and ``advanced technology offers much greater
military efficiency.''
This potential efficiency is largely unfamiliar to the
general public. For example, current miniaturized weapons may
seem elephantine after advances in extreme ultraviolet
lithography equip guidance and control systems with circuitry
not 0.25 microns but 0.007 microns wide, a 35-fold reduction
that will make possible the robotization of arms, from
terminally guided and target-identifying bullets to
autonomous tank killers that fly hundreds of miles, burrow
into the ground, and sleep like locusts until they are
awakened by the seismic signature of enemy armor.
Lead-magnesium-niobate transducers in broadband sonars are
likely to make the seas perfectly transparent, eliminating
for the first time the presumed invulnerability of submarine-
launched ballistic missiles, the anchor of strategic nuclear
stability. The steady perfection of missile guidance has long
made nearly everything the left says about nuclear
disarmament disingenuous or uninformed, and the advent of
metastable explosives creates the prospect of a single B-1
bomber carrying the non-nuclear weapons load of 450 B-17s,
the equivalent of 26,800 100-pound bombs. Someday, we will
have these things, or, if we abstain, or potential enemies
will have them and we will not.
To field them will be more expensive then fielding less
miraculous weapons, which cannot simply be abandoned lest an
enemy exploit the transition, and which will remain as
indispensable as the rifleman holding his ground, because the
nature of war is counter-miraculous. And yet, when the
revolution in military affairs is still mainly academic, we
have cut recklessly into the staple forces.
God save the American soldier from those who believe that
his life can be protected and his mission accomplished on the
cheap. For what they perceive as extravagance is always less
costly in lives and treasure than the long drawn-out wars it
deters altogether or shortens with quick victories. In the
name of their misplaced frugality we have transformed our
richly competitive process of acquiring weapons into the
single-supplier model of the command economies that we
defeated in the Cold War, largely with the superior weapons
that the idea of free and competitive markets allowed us to
produce.
Though initially more expensive, producing half a dozen
different combat aircraft and seeing which are best is better
than decreeing that one will do the job and praying that it
may. Among other things, strike aircraft have many different
roles, and relying upon just one would be the same sort of
economy as having Clark Gable play both Rhett Butler and
Scarlett O'Hara.
Having relinquished or abandoned many foreign bases, the
United States requires its warships to go quickly from place
to place so as to compensate for their inadequate number, and
has built them light using a lot of aluminum, which, because
it can burn in air at 3,000 degrees Celsius, is used in
incendiary bombs and blast furnaces. (Join the navy and see
the world. You won't need to bring a toaster.)
And aluminum or not, there are too few ships, During the
EP-3 incident various pinheads furthered the impression of an
American naval cordon off the Chinese coast. Though in 1944
the navy kept 17 major carriers in the central Pacific alone,
not long ago its assets were so attenuated by the destruction
of a few Yugos disguised as tanks that for three months
there was not in the vast western Pacific even a single
American aircraft carrier.
What remains of the order of battle is crippled by a lack
of the unglamorous, costly supports that are the first to go
when there isn't enough money. Consider the floating dry
dock. By putting ships back into action with minimal transit
time, floating dry docks are force preservers and
multipliers. In 1972, the United States had 94. Now it has
14. Though history is bitter and clear, this kind of mistake
persists.
Had the allies of World War II been prepared with a
sufficient number of so pedestrian a thing as landing craft,
the war might have been cheated of a year and a half and many
millions of lives. In 1940, the French army disposed of 530
artillery pieces, 830 antitank guns, and 235 (almost half) of
its best tanks, because in 1940 the French did not think much
of the Wehrmacht--until May.
How shall the United States avoid similar misjudgments? Who
shall stand against the common wisdom when it is wrong about
deterrence, wrong about the causes of war, wrong about the
state of the world, wrong about the ambitions of ascendant
nations, wrong about history, and wrong about human nature?
In the defense of the United States, doing too much is more
prudent than doing too little. Though many in Congress argue
this and argue it well, Congress will not follow one of its
own. Though the president's appointees also argue it well,
the public will wait only upon the president himself. Only he
can sway a timid Congress, clear the way for his appointees,
and move the country toward the restoration of its military
power.
The president himself must make the argument, or all else
is in vain. If he is unwilling to risk his political capital
and his presidency to undo the damage of the past eight
years, then in the fire next time his name will be linked
with that of his predecessor, and there it will stay forever.
____
[From the Washington Post, May 20, 2001]
Rumsfield on High Wire of Defense Reform
(By Thomas E. Ricks)
In his first four months at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld has launched a score of secretive studies
and posed hundreds of tough questions as he has tried to
create a new vision for the American military, looking at
everything from missile defenses and global strategy to the
flaws of a Truman-vintage personnel system.
Yet, in that short span, he has also rallied an unlikely
collection of critics, ranging from conservative members of
Congress and his predecessor as defense secretary to some of
the generals who work for him. In dozens of interviews, those
people expressed deep concern that Rumsfeld has acted
imperiously, kept some of the top brass in the dark and
failed to maintain adequate communications with Capitol Hill.
``He's blown off the Hill, he's blown off the senior
leaders in the military, and he's blown off the media,'' said
Thomas Donnelly, a defense expert at the conservative Project
for the New American Century. ``Is there a single group he's
reached out to?''
The criticism has focused on Rumsfeld's score of study
groups, staffed by retired generals and admirals and other
experts who are probing everything from weapons programs to
military retirement policies. In Pentagon hallways, ``the
Rumsfeld review,'' as the studies are collectively called, is
mocked by some as a martial version of Hillary Rodham
Clinton's health care plan, which failed spectacularly in
1994 when it was offered up to Congress.
``It's arrogant theorists behind closed doors,'' said one
person offering the Clinton analogy, retired Army Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters, now a prominent writer on military strategy.
The military is already responding in significant and
striking ways. On Thursday, the Joint Chiefs of Staff held a
closed-door meeting in the ``Tank,'' their secure conference
room at the Pentagon, where they posed scathing questions
about Rumsfeld's intentions on strategy and possible cuts to
the Army, defense officials said. Yesterday, retired Gen.
Gordon Sullivan, a former Army chief of staff, delivered an
angry speech assailing the apparent direction of Rumsfeld's
reforms as ``imprudent.''
One point on which both Rumsfeld and his critics agree is
the gravity of his reform effort. Reshaping the military to
meet the new threats of the 21st century--and to keep the
U.S. armed forces by far the stongest in the world--was a key
campaign pledge of President Bush. To be successful, Rumsfeld
must not only come up with specific answers but also find
enough support in Congress and across the military to fund
them and carry them out. The job will be made all the more
difficult because the reforms could anger members of Congress
by closing bases, terminating major weapons programs and
shifting some spending from tanks, ships and aircraft into
newer areas such as space and missile defenses.
In an extensive interview in his Pentagon office last week,
Rumsfeld argued that his review has been necessary, rational
and inclusive, involving more than 170 meetings with 44
generals and admirals. ``Everyone who wants to be briefed I
think has been briefed,'' he said. ``Everyone cannot be
involved in everything.''
Far from reaching concrete conclusions behind closed doors,
he said, he simply has been posing questions about how to
change the military to deal with a world where even Third
World nations can buy long-range missiles, terrorists have
attacked sites inside the United States, and the American
economy is increasingly reliant on vulnerable satellites.
``I've got a lot of thoughts, but I don't have a lot of
answers,'' he said.
Overall, Rumsfeld swung in the interview between being
conciliatory toward his critics and being dismissive of them.
``Is change hard for people? Yeah,'' he said sympathetically.
``Is the anticipation of change even harder? Yeah.''
But a moment later he added: ``The people it shakes up may
very well be people who don't have enough to do. They're too
busy getting shook up. They should get out there and get to
work.''
brusque style
Rumsfeld, a bright, impatient man who is not a schmoozer by
nature, spent years as an executive in the pharmaceutical
industry and honed a top-down management style. That approach
may be the only way to overhaul America's huge and
conservative military establishment. But his brusque manner
has exacerbated anxiety about change in the Pentagon and
could, in the end, undercut his effort.
Generals who have met with him report that communications
tend to be one way. ``He takes a lot in, but he doesn't give
anything back,'' one said. ``You go and brief him, and it's
just blank.''
Neither that general nor any other Pentagon official
critical of Rumsfeld would agree to be quoted by name.
Indeed, one said Rumsfeld's aides would ``have my tongue''
were it known that he had talked to a reporter.
Many of those interviewed said they are worried that the
future of the institution to which they have devoted their
adult lives is being decided without them. One senior general
unfavorably compared Rumsfeld's stewardship of the Pentagon
with Colin L. Powell's performance as secretary of state.
``Mr.
[[Page S5699]]
Powell is very inclusive, and Mr. Rumsfeld is the opposite,''
said the general, who knows both men. ``We've been kept out
of the loop.''
Added another senior officer: ``The fact is, he is
disenfranchising people.''
Some noted that the Bush administration came into office
vowing to restore the military's trust in its civilian
overseers. ``Everyone in the military voted for these guys,
and now they feel like they aren't being trusted,'' a
Pentagon official said.
The Army, which has the reputation of being the most
doggedly obedient of all the services, appears to be closest
to going into opposition against the new regime. Army
generals are especially alarmed by rumors that they could
lose one or two of their 10 active divisions under the new
Pacific-oriented strategy that Rumsfeld appears to be moving
toward but has not yet unveiled.
At the Joint Chiefs' ``Tank'' session on Thursday, one
defense official said, the Army led the charge against the
conclusions of a Rumsfeld study group on conventional weapons
that suggested big cuts in Army troops. The service chiefs
told their chairman, Gen. Henry H. Shelton, that they could
not make sense of that recommendation without knowing
precisely what strategy Rumsfeld wants to pursue. ``It wasn't
just the Army, but [Army officers] took the lead'' in the
criticism, the official added.
Retired generals often say in public what the active-duty
leadership is thinking but can't utter. Sullivan, the former
Army chief, appeared to play that role yesterday in a speech
to a conference of Army reservists. He said he is worried
that Rumsfeld would ``propose a world in which we will be
able to hide behind our missile defense,'' which he went on
to liken to the expensive but useless Maginot Line that
France erected against Germany after World War I.
In another recent talk, Sullivan referred to Rumsfeld's new
emphasis on space as a ``rathole'' for defense spending. He
also sent an e-mail criticizing Rumsfeld, and that message
has circulated widely inside the Army.
wary generals
The military now appears so wary of Rumsfeld that officers
perceive slights where none may have been intended. The
generals are especially peeved by what they believe is a
pattern of moves by Rumsfeld to reallocate power from the
military to himself.
Earlier this month, for example, Rumsfeld dumped his
military assistant, a one-star admiral who had been picked
for the job just four months earlier, and replaced him with a
three-star admiral. ``It turned out I made a mistake, just to
be blunt about it, thinking that a one-star could, simply
because he was in the secretary's office, get the place to
move at the same pace that a three-star could or a two-
star,'' Rumsfeld explained. In other words, one flag officer
commented, Rumsfeld felt he needed someone who could crack
the whip over the top brass.
Rumsfeld also caused a stir in the services by bringing in
retired Vice Adm. Staser Holcomb, who was his military
assistant during his first term as secretary of defense,
under President Gerald R. Ford, to look over the current crop
of generals and admirals. Holcomb's queries may indicate that
Rumsfeld wants to take over the selection of top generals--
one of the last prerogatives left to the service chiefs. The
chiefs generally have little say about operational matters,
which are the province of the regional commanders, or
``CinCs,'' and they don't have much sway over weapons
acquisition, which is a civilian responsibility. But they do
get to pick who joins the club of top generals.
Rumsfeld said Holcomb is working on military personnel
matters, especially in helping him look at who should become
the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when Shelton
steps down later this year. Asked whether he is stepping on
the toes of the service chiefs by getting involved in the
selection of two- and three-star generals, Rumsfeld grinned
and laughed, but said nothing.
Rumsfeld has also been planning to start a new ``Crisis
Coordination Center'' to be overseen by his office, defense
officials said. They report that Rumsfeld believes that
communications and responsibilities during crises have been
handled hazily. Creating such a center--a move that has not
previously been reported--almost certainly would diminish the
power of the staff of the Joint Chiefs, which oversees
operations.
Rumsfeld's views on crisis communications may have been
crystallized by an undisclosed foul-up that occurred during
the Feb. 16 air strikes against Iraq, the Bush
administration's first use of military force. At the last
minute, military commanders moved up the timing of the
strikes by six hours.
But word somehow didn't get to Bush, said several defense
officials. The president had expected the bombs to begin
dropping as he headed home from a summit meeting in Mexico.
Instead, the strikes started just as he arrived for that
meeting, overshadowing his first foreign trip as president
and infuriating him, officials said.
Rumsfeld declined to comment on that incident. But he said
that, generally speaking, miscommunications are ``inevitable
when people are new on the job.''
tensions with congress
If anything, Rumsfeld's relations with Capitol Hill have
been even more tumultuous. The military, after all,
ultimately will follow orders. But Congress expects to have a
big say in the orders.
``There really could be a huge collision between Rumsfeld,
the services and Congress,'' predicted Harlan Ullman, a
defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies. ``There's an iceberg out there, and there's a
Titanic.''
Ullman said he thinks Rumsfeld has done a fairly good job,
considering how understaffed the top of the Pentagon has
been, with only a few senior officials in place.
But he also said that the Bush White House has badly
miscalculated on the politics of defense. ``I don't think the
administration understands how much political capital it will
take to change the U.S. military,'' he said. He and others
warn that defense isn't a major issue on the Hill, and that
no clear constituency exists for military reform. At the same
time, there is a clear bloc against change, consisting of
members of Congress who worry that bases and weapons
plants in their districts could be closed.
Rumsfeld said he has devoted enormous effort to
congressional relations, holding about 70 meetings with 115
lawmakers over the past four months. ``I am on the hill
frequently,'' he said. ``I frequently have breakfasts and
lunches down here that include members.''
But the view from the Hill appears to be different. ``There
are lots of members concerned about the lack of
communications,'' a Senate staffer said last week.
One warning sign has been a spate of ``holds'' placed on
Rumsfeld's nominees by angry senators. These holds, which
prevent a confirmation vote from taking place, aren't made
public. But it is striking that Republican senators appear to
have held up some of the nominees of a Republican
administration. The Senate majority leader, Trent Lott (R-
Miss.), controlled two of the holds--on the nominees to be
the Pentagon's general counsel and assistant secretary for
public affairs--that were lifted late Thursday.
Rumsfeld's predecessor as defense secretary, William S.
Cohen, took the unusual step last week of publicly
criticizing Rumsfeld's handling of Congress. ``However
brilliant the strategy may be, you cannot formulate a
strategy and mandate that Congress implement it,'' Cohen, a
former Republican senator, told a group of reporters.
``The less they're involved in the beginning,'' Cohen
warned, ``the more they'll be involved in the end, and not
necessarily in a positive way.''
Rumsfeld appears to have strong backing not only from Bush
but also from Vice President Cheney, his former protege when
Rumsfeld was a White House counselor and then chief of staff
in the Ford administration. Earlier this month, a senior
White House official said: ``The vice president indicated to
the secretary that he would be as helpful as he could. As a
former defense secretary, he has a special interest in the
Pentagon.''
Where the White house stands on Rumsfeld's efforts should
become clearer this Friday, when Bush is scheduled to speak
about U.S. military strategy in a commencement address at
Annapolis.
In the following weeks, Rumsfeld will engage Congress in
hearings, then will begin making critical decisions on high-
profile weapons systems and on whether to cut the size of the
military to pay for new weapons. Every one of those decisions
could antagonize members of Congress.
Rumsfeld said he looks forward to working with lawmakers to
find the right answers. ``Hell, I know what I can do and I
can't do,'' he said. ``I can do some things, but I can't
simply stick a computer chip in my head and come out with a
perfect answer to big, tough important questions like that
for the country. Even if you could, change imposed is change
opposed.''
______
By Mrs. CLINTON:
S. 968. A bill to establish Healthy and High Performance Schools
Program in the Department of Education and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, I introduce legislation to help
our schools become more energy efficient.
Each year, America's schools spend more on energy costs than they do
on books and computers combined.
As we continue to debate education spending, there is at least one
way to save on education costs: energy efficiency measures could save
America's schools $1.5 billion. And we can reinvest those dollars into
educational resources--like books, computers or more training for our
teachers--that can make a real difference for our children's futures.
Typically, nearly one-third of the energy used in a U.S. school goes
to waste because of outdated technology, old equipment and poor
insulation. The least energy-efficient schools, many of which are in
desperate need of upgrades and repair, use almost four times as much
energy per square foot as the most energy-efficient ones.
Over half of our the country's K-12 schools are more than 40 years
old and in need of renovation to reach standards of efficiency and
comfort. And it's estimated that 6,000 new schools will be needed in
the next 10 years because of the growing student population.
[[Page S5700]]
The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that schools could save 25 to
30 percent of the money they spend on energy--$1.5 billion--through
better building design, use of energy-efficient and renewable energy
technologies and improvements to operations and maintenance.
Unfortunately, school districts may not be aware of the things they
can do to be more energy efficient, improve indoor environments, and
save money. That is why the legislation that I am introducing today is
so important. The Healthy and High Performance Schools Act of 2001
would create a program within the Department of Education to provide
grants to states to help school districts make their buildings
healthier and more energy efficient. It will help our schools improve
the indoor air quality, make smart energy efficient upgrades and take
advantage of new, energy efficient technology. And this will save our
schools money.
There are some basic things that every school can do to reduce energy
use. If schools adopt energy management systems to coordinate heating,
ventilation and air conditioning they can help ensure rooms are heated
and cooled only while being used.
And simply closing doors to keep heated or cooled air from escaping
can save money. Schools can add insulation to walls, floors, attics and
ceilings or use shades, films and screens to better secure windows.
Using some type of window treatment in the summer can greatly reduce
the need for air conditioning. Energy-efficient fixtures, bulbs and
lamps can make a big difference too. And installing occupancy sensors
to control lighting when rooms are empty is smart and efficient.
So much of the energy used by schools--approximately fifteen
percent--is for cooking, refrigeration, and heating hot water. Simply
maintaining food service equipment in schools can mean large energy
savings.
Energy use by computers and office equipment is one of the fastest-
growing sources of electricity consumption in schools, businesses and
homes. And it is expected to grow by as much as 500 percent in the next
decade. If schools use products with an ENERGY STAR label--the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, label for energy efficient
appliances--they can save as much as 50 percent in energy costs.
And I'm proud to report that many schools in New York are already
leading the way.
The Smithtown School District on Long Island recently became the
first school district in New York State to receive the Energy Star
label. The District completed an extensive lighting modification
project using the latest energy-efficient technologies in three of its
elementary schools. Three schools, Smithtown Elementary, Mount Pleasant
Elementary and Dogwood Elementary, will display the bronze plaque with
the Energy Star logo in their buildings. The district now uses more
than five million kilowatts less than it did in the 1970's.
The Kingston School District in Ulster County, New York, made drastic
improvements in the energy performance of all the schools in the
district by replacing many of the windows, installing new boilers, and
making other energy efficient upgrades. In 2000, the school district
saved more than $395,000 through its energy-efficiency upgrades and in
2001, received an Energy Star Partner of the Year Award.
Sachem Central School District on Long Island was awarded the Energy
Start Partner of the Year Award in 2000. The District installed energy-
efficient lighting fixtures and new boilers that resulted in savings of
almost 300,000 gallons of oil and more than 2.9 million kWh. Special
building automation system helps measure, monitor and manage energy
use.
Other New York Energy Star School Partners are Connetquot Central
School District, East Rockaway Public Schools, Fordham Preparatory
School, Patchogue Medford Schools, Rochester City School District, Rye
City School District and Wantagh Union Free School District.
I am pleased to join my colleague in the House of Representatives,
Mark Udall from Colorado, the sponsor of the High Performance Schools
Act of 2001, H.R. 1129, as well as the co-sponsors, including my fellow
New Yorkers, Sherwood Boehlert and Maurice Hinchey.
I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in supporting
this legislation, which has bipartisan support in the House, so that we
can provide our schools with the tools that they need to save money on
their energy costs, and reinvest that money into much-needed education
resources that can help our children reach their goals.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 968
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Healthy and High Performance
Schools Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) American kindergarten through grade 12 schools spend
over $6,000,000,000 annually on energy costs, which is more
than is spent on books and computers combined.
(2) Approximately 25,000,000 students are attending schools
with at least 1 unsatisfactory environmental condition.
(3) Educators teach and students learn best in an
environment that is comfortable, healthy, naturally lit where
possible, and in good repair, and studies have indicated that
student achievement is greater and attendance higher when
those conditions are met.
(4) Over half of our Nation's kindergarten through grade 12
schools are more than 40 years old and in need of renovation
to reach such standard of efficiency and comfort, and 6,000
new schools will be required over the next 10 years to
accommodate the growing number of students.
(5) Inadequate ventilation in school buildings, poor
lighting and acoustical quality, and uncomfortable
temperatures can cause poor health and diminish students'
capacity to concentrate and excel.
(6) Inefficient use of water, either in consumption or from
poorly maintained systems, is prevalent in older schools.
(7) Using a whole building approach in the design of new
schools and the renovation of existing schools (considering
how materials, systems, and products connect and overlap and
also how a school is integrated on its site and within the
surrounding community) will result in healthy and high
performance school buildings.
(8) Adoption of whole building concepts has been shown to
result in dramatic improvements in student and teacher
performance.
(9) Adopting a whole building approach usually results in a
lower life cycle cost for the school building than for a
conventionally designed and built building.
(10) Systematic use of energy conservation in school
construction and renovation projects can save at least one
quarter of current energy costs, leaving more money for
teachers and educational materials.
(11) The use of renewable energy sources such as
daylighting, solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, and biomass
power in a building already designed to be energy-efficient
can help meet the building's energy needs without added
emissions.
(12) Using environmentally preferable products and
providing for adequate supplies of fresh air will improve
indoor air quality and provide healthful school buildings.
(13) Most school districts do not have the knowledge of
cutting-edge design and technologies to integrate optimum
efficiency and environmentally healthy designs into new
school construction or into school renovations.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to assist local
educational agencies in the production of high performance
elementary school and secondary school buildings that are
healthful, productive, energy-efficient, and environmentally
sound.
SEC. 3. PROGRAM ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Program.--There is established in the Department of
Education the High Performance Schools Program (in this Act
referred to as the ``Program'').
(b) Grants.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, may, through the Program,
award grants to State educational agencies to permit such
State educational agencies to carry out subsection (c).
(c) State Use of Funds.--
(1) Subgrants.--
(A) In general.--A State educational agency receiving a
grant under this Act shall use the grant funds made available
under section 4(a)(1) to award subgrants to local educational
agencies to permit such local educational agencies to carry
out the activities described in subsection (d).
(B) Limitation.--A State educational agency shall award
subgrants under subparagraph (A) to local educational
agencies that have made a commitment to use the subgrant
funds to develop healthy, high performance school buildings
in accordance with the plan developed and approved pursuant
to subparagraph (C)(i).
(C) Implementation.--
(i) Plans.--A State educational agency shall award
subgrants under paragraph (1) only to local educational
agencies that, in
[[Page S5701]]
consultation with the State educational agency and State
offices with responsibilities relating to energy and health,
have developed plans that the State educational agency
determines to be feasible and appropriate in order to achieve
the purposes for which such subgrants are made.
(ii) Supplementing grant funds.--The State educational
agency shall encourage qualifying local educational agencies
to supplement their subgrant funds with funds from other
sources in the implementation of their plans.
(2) Administration.--A State educational agency receiving a
grant under this Act shall use the grant funds made available
under section 4(a)(2)--
(A) to evaluate compliance by local educational agencies
with the requirements of this Act;
(B) to distribute information and materials to clearly
define and promote the development of healthy, high
performance school buildings for both new and existing
facilities;
(C) to organize and conduct programs for school board
members, school district personnel, architects, engineers,
and others to advance the concepts of healthy, high
performance school buildings;
(D) to obtain technical services and assistance in planning
and designing high performance school buildings; and
(E) to collect and monitor information pertaining to the
high performance school building projects funded under this
Act.
(3) Promotion.--Subject to section 4(a), a State
educational agency receiving a grant under this Act may use
grant funds for promotional and marketing activities,
including facilitating private and public financing, working
with school administrations, students, and communities, and
coordinating public benefit programs.
(d) Local Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--A local educational agency receiving a
subgrant under subsection (c)(1) shall use such subgrant
funds for new school building projects and renovation
projects that--
(A) achieve energy-efficiency performance that reduces
energy use to at least 30 percent below that of a school
constructed in compliance with standards prescribed in
Chapter 8 of the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code,
or a similar State code intended to achieve substantially
equivalent results; and
(B) achieve environmentally healthy schools in compliance
with Federal and State codes intended to achieve healthy and
safe school environments.
(2) Existing buildings.--A local educational agency
receiving a subgrant under subsection (c)(1) for renovation
of existing school buildings shall use such subgrant funds to
achieve energy efficiency performance that reduces energy use
below the school's baseline consumption, assuming a 3-year,
weather-normalized average for calculating such baseline and
to help bring schools into compliance with health and safety
standards.
SEC. 4. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.
(a) In General.--A State receiving a grant under this Act
shall use--
(1) not less than 70 percent of such grant funds to carry
out section 3(c)(1); and
(2) not less than 15 percent of such grant funds to carry
out section 3(c)(2).
(b) Reservation.--The Secretary may reserve an amount not
to exceed $300,000 per year from amounts appropriated under
section 6 to assist State educational agencies in
coordinating and implementing the Program. Such funds may be
used to develop reference materials to further define the
principles and criteria to achieve healthy, high performance
school buildings.
SEC. 5. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a biennial
review of State actions implementing this Act, and shall
report to Congress on the results of such reviews.
(b) Reviews.--In conducting such reviews, the Secretary
shall assess the effectiveness of the calculation procedures
used by State educational agencies in establishing
eligibility of local educational agencies for subgrants under
this Act, and may assess other aspects of the Program to
determine whether the aspects have been effectively
implemented.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to
carry out this Act--
(1) $250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through
2005; and
(2) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years
2006 through 2011.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Elementary school and secondary school.--The terms
``elementary school'' and ``secondary school'' have the same
meanings given such terms in section 14101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
(2) Healthy, high performance school building.--The term
``healthy, high performance school building'' means a school
building which, in its design, construction, operation, and
maintenance, maximizes use of renewable energy and energy-
efficient practices, is cost-effective on a life cycle basis,
uses affordable, environmentally preferable, durable
materials, enhances indoor environmental quality, protects
and conserves water, and optimizes site potential.
(3) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
agency'' has the same meaning given such term in section
14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 8801).
(4) Renewable energy.--The term ``renewable energy'' means
energy produced by solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, or
biomass power.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
(6) State educational agency.--The term ``State educational
agency'' has the same meaning given such term in section
14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 8801).
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 970. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 39 Tremont Street, Paris Hill, Maine, as the Horatio
King Post Office Building; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to
honor one of the great contributors to our national postal system,
Horatio King, by naming after him the Paris Hill Post Office in Paris,
ME, the town of his birth. My colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe,
joins me in this effort.
Horatio King had a long career serving the public as a newspaper
publisher and postal employee, eventually working his way through the
ranks to become Postmaster General under President Buchanan. All told,
he served under three Presidents.
His career with the Postal Service began in 1839, when he was
appointed by then Postmaster General Kendall to a postal position that
required him to leave Maine and reside in Washington, DC. In 1850, he
became affiliated with the foreign mail service and was instrumental in
developing this aspect of our postal system. His efforts were
recognized in 1854 when he was appointed first assistant Postmaster
General, a post he would hold until becoming Postmaster General in
1861, shortly before the outbreak of the Civil War.
Horatio King did not end his service, however, after reaching this
pinnacle. In 1863, President Lincoln recognized his steadfast devotion
to the Union and, although King was of the opposite political party,
named him to a commission charged with carrying out the Emancipation
Proclamation in the District of Columbia.
King was also a man of letters, and was well known for his literary
evenings which did much to elevate the culture in Washington at a time
when it was a much smaller and less diverse town than the one of today.
He would frequently publish newspaper and magazine articles and
lectures, and even published a book of travel sketches upon returning
from a tour of Europe.
Today, the birthplace of Horatio King remains well preserved and
cared for by my constituents, Janice and Glenn Davis, as the lovely
King's Hill Inn.
Horatio King served Maine well by serving America well. It is
appropriate that Congress recognize his contributions by naming the
Post Office in the town of his birth for him and, along with Senator
Snowe, I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce legislation
to accomplish this.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Feingold):
S. 971. A bill to expand the availability of oral health services by
strengthening the dental workforce in designated underserved areas; to
the Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and
colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Russ Feingold, in introducing
legislation to improve access to oral health care by strengthening the
dental workforce in our nation's rural and underserved communities.
Oral and general health are inseparable, and good dental care is
critical to our overall physical health and well-being. Dental health
encompasses far more than cavities and gum disease. The recent U.S.
Surgeon General report Oral Health in America states that ``the mouth
acts as a mirror of health and disease'' that can help diagnose
disorders such as diabetes, leukemia, heart disease, or anemia.
While oral health in America has improved dramatically over the last
50 years, these improvements have not occurred evenly across all
sectors of our population, particularly among low-income individuals
and families. Too many Americans today lack access to dental care.
While there are clinically proven techniques to prevent or delay
[[Page S5702]]
the progression of dental health problems, an estimated 25 million
Americans live in areas lacking adequate dental services. As a
consequence, these effective treatment and prevention programs are not
available in too many of our communities. Astoundingly, as many as
eleven percent of our nation's rural population has never been to a
dentist.
This situation is exacerbated by the fact that our dental workforce
is graying and the overall ratio of dentists to population is
declining. In Maine, for example, there currently are 393 active
dentists, 241 of whom are 45 or older. More than 20 percent of dentists
nationwide will retire in the next ten years, and the number of dental
graduates by 2015 may not be enough to replace these retirees.
As a consequence, Maine, like many States, is currently facing a
serious shortage of dentists, particularly in rural areas. While there
is one general practice dentist for every 2,286 people in the Portland
area, the numbers drop off dramatically in western and northern Maine.
In Aroostook County, where I am from, there's only one dentist for
every 5,507 people. Moreover, at a time when tooth decay is the most
prevalent childhood disease in America, Maine has fewer than ten
specialists in pediatric dentistry, and most of these are located in
the southern part of the state.
This dental workforce shortage is exacerbated by the fact that Maine
currently does not have a dental school or even a dental residency
program. Dental schools can provide a critical safety net for the oral
health needs of a state, and dental education clinics can provide the
surrounding communities with care that otherwise would be unavailable
to disadvantaged and underinsured populations. Maine is just one of a
number of predominantly rural states that lacks this important
component of a dental safety net.
Maine, like many States, is exploring a number of innovative ideas
for increasing access to dental care in underserved areas. In an effort
to supplement and encourage these efforts, we are introducing
legislation today to establish a new State grant program designed to
improve access to oral health services in rural and underserved areas.
The legislation authorizes $50 million over 5 years for grants to
States to help them develop innovative dental workforce development
programs specific to their individual needs.
States could use these grants to fund a wide variety of programs. For
example, they could use the funds for loan forgiveness and repayment
programs for dentists practicing in underserved areas. They could also
use them to provide grants and low- or no-interest loans to help
practitioners to establish or expand practices in these underserved
areas. States, like Maine, that do not have a dental school could use
the funds to establish a dental residency program. Other States might
want to use the grant funding to establish or expand community or
school-based dental facilities or to set up mobile or portable dental
clinics.
To assist in their recruitment and retention efforts, States could
also use the funds for placement and support of dental students,
residents, and advanced dentistry trainees. Or, they could use the
grant funds for continuing dental education, including distance-based
education, and practice support through teledentistry.
Other programs that could be funded through the grants include:
community-based prevention services such as water fluoridation and
dental sealant programs; school programs to encourage children to go
into oral health or science professions; the establishment or expansion
of a State dental office to coordinate oral health and access issues;
and any other activities that are determined to be appropriate by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The National Health Service Corps is helping to meet the oral health
needs of underserved communities by placing dentists and dental
hygienists in some of America's most difficult-to-place inner city,
rural, and frontier areas. Unfortunately, however, the number of
dentists and dental hygienists with obligations to serve in the
National Health Service Corps falls far short of meeting the total
identified need. According to the Surgeon General, only about 6 percent
of the dental need in America's rural and underserved communities is
currently being met by the National Health Service Corps.
In my State, approximately 173,000 Mainers live in designated dental
health professional shortage areas. While the National Health Service
Corps estimates that it will take 33 dental clinicians to meet this
need, it currently has only three serving in my State.
The bill we are introducing today would make some needed improvements
in this critically important program so that it can better respond to
our nation's oral health needs.
First, it would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
develop and implement a plan for increasing the participation of
dentists and dental hygienists in the National Health Service Corps
scholarship and loan repayment programs.
It would also allow National Health Service Corps scholarship and
loan repayment program recipients to fulfill their commitment on a
part-time basis. Some small rural communities may not have sufficient
populations to support a full-time dentist or dental hygienist. This
would give the National Health Service Corps additional flexibility to
meet the needs of these communities. Moreover, some practitioners may
find part-time service more attractive to them. This particularly may
be the case for a retired dentist who may want to practice only part-
time, allowing this feasibility could in turn improve both recruitment
and retention in these communities.
Last year, after a 6-year hiatus, the National Health Service Corps
began a two-year pilot program to award scholarships to dental
students.
This is a step in the right direction, however, these scholarships
are only being awarded to students attending certain dental schools,
not one of which is located in New England. Moreover, the pilot project
requires the participating dental schools to encourage Corps dental
scholars to practice in communities near their educational
institutions. The problem is obvious. If none of these programs are in
New England, and yet there is a requirement that the dentists
participating in these programs practice in the surrounding
communities, this is of no benefit to a State such as Maine that does
not have a dental school and does not have a qualifying program. As a
consequence, this program will do nothing at all to help relieve the
dental shortage in Maine and other areas of New England.
The legislation we are introducing today would address this problem
by expanding the National Health Service Corps Pilot Scholarship
Program so that dental students attending any of the 55 American dental
schools can apply and require that placements for these scholars be
based strictly on community need, not on whether or not they surround
the dental school.
It would also improve the process for designating dental health
professional shortage areas and ensure that the criteria for making
such designations provide a more accurate reflection of oral health
needs, particularly in our rural areas where the problem is most acute.
And finally, taxing the scholarships and stipends of students
adversely affects their financial incentive to participate in the
National Health Service Corps and to provide health care services in
underserved communities. Our legislation would, therefore, exclude from
Federal income tax the fees and related educational expenses to
individuals who are participating in the National Health Service Corps
scholarship and loan repayment programs.
The Dental Health Improvement Act will make critically important oral
health care services more accessible in our Nation's rural and
underserved communities. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in
supportin this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that letters
endorsing my bill from the American Dental Association and the American
Dental Education Association be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
American Dental Association,
Washington, DC, May 25, 2001.
Hon. Susan Collins,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the American Dental
Association and our 144,000 member dentists, I am delighted
to endorse
[[Page S5703]]
the ``Dental Health Improvement Act,'' which you introduced
today. The Association is proud that the oral health of
Americans continues to improve, and that Americans have
access to the best oral health care in the world.
Having said that, we agree that dental care has not reached
every corner of American society to the extent it has reached
the majority of Americans. For those Americans who are unable
to pay for care, and those with special needs, such as
disabled individuals, those with congenital conditions, and
non-ambulatory patients, obtaining dental care can be
difficult.
Your legislation recognizes several of these problems and
goes a long way towards addressing them in a targeted and
meaningful way. The section on grant proposals offers states
the opportunity to be innovative in their approaches to
address specific geographical dental workforce issues. You
recognize the need to provide incentives to increase faculty
recruitment in accredited dental training institutions, and
your support for increasing loan repayment and scholarship
programs will provide the appropriate incentives to increase
the dental workforce in ``safety net'' organizations.
The ADA is very grateful for your leadership on these
issues. Thank you for introducing this legislation. We want
to continue to work with you on dental access issues in
general and on this legislation as it moves through the
Congress.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Anderton,
D.D.S., J.D., LL.M., President.
____
American Dental
Education Association,
Washington, DC, May 23, 2001.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins, I am writing on behalf of the dental
education community to commend you for developing and
introducing the Dental Health Improvement Act. This
legislation, when enacted into law, will expand the
availability of oral health care services for the nation's
underserved populations, strengthen the dental workforce, as
well as maintain the ability of dental schools to produce the
necessary manpower to provide oral health care to all
Americans.
The American Dental Education Association (ADEA) represents
the nation's 55 dental schools, as well as hospital-based
dental and advanced dental education programs, allied dental
programs and schools, dental research institutions, and the
faculty and students at these institutions. ADEA's member
schools are dedicated to providing the highest quality
education to their students, conducting research and
providing oral health care services to Americans from
medically unserved and underserved areas, the majority of
whom are uninsured or who are from low-income families.
Recent downward trends in student enrollment and a growing
shortage in dental faculty have caused ADEA serious concern
about our ability to fully and competently address these
responsibilities.
Therefore, I was delighted to see that the Dental Health
Improvement Act directly responds to many of these concerns.
If implemented, the Act would expand access to oral health
care to thousands of Americans for the first time. When
enacted, the provisions of the bill can be instrumental in
helping the more than 31 million Americans living in ares
that lack access to adequate oral health care services. It
can provide much needed help to dental education institutions
as we seek to address faculty shortages.
As you know, dental education institutions face a major
crisis in the graying of its faculty which threatens the
quality of dental education, oral, dental and craniofacial
research, and ultimately will adversely impact the health of
all Americans. Currently, there are approximately 400 faculty
vacancies. Retirements are expected to accelerate in both
private practice as well as teaching faculties in the
nation's 55 dental schools. There is a significant decrease
in the number of men and women choosing careers in dentistry,
teaching and research. Your personal experience in Maine is a
perfect example.
Educational debt has increased, affecting both career
choices and practice location. Your bill will provide funds
to help with recruitment and retention efforts and helps
expand dental residency training programs to the 27 states
that do not currently have dental schools.
Also important are the incentives you have proposed to
expand or establish community-based dental facilities linked
with dental education institutions. The need for this is
obvious. More than two-thirds of patients visiting dental
school clinics are members of families whose annual income is
estimated to be $15,000 or below. About half of these
patients are on Medicare or Medicaid, while more than a third
have no insurance coverage or government assistance program
to help them pay for their dental care.
Dental academic institutions are committed to their patient
care mission, not only by improving the management and
efficiency of patient centered care delivery at the dental
school, but through increasing affiliations with and use of
satellite clinics. All dental schools maintain at least one
dental clinic on-site, and approximately 70% of U.S. dental
schools have school-sponsored satellite clinics. Delivering
patient care in diverse settings demonstrates professional
responsibility to the oral health of the public.
Dental schools and other academic dental institutions
provide oral health to underserved and disadvantaged
populations. Yet more than 11 percent of the nation's rural
population has never been to see a dentist. This bill can
have a positive impact on this population by establishing
access to oral health care at community-based dental
facilities and consolidated health centers that are linked to
dental schools. 100 million Americans presently do not have
access to fluoridated water. The bill provides for community-
based prevention services such as fluoride and sealants that
can cause a dramatic change for nearly a third of the
nation's population.
Thank you again for taking such a leadership role in the
area of oral health. Please be assured that ADEA looks
forward to working closely with you to bring the far-reaching
potential of the Dental Health Improvement Act to fruition.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Valachovic,
D.M.D., M.P.H., Executive Director.
Ms. COLLINS. Finally, Mr. President, I thank my principal cosponsor
of this legislation, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin, for his
contributions to this bill. We found that Maine and Wisconsin have many
similar problems in ensuring that there is an adequate supply of
dentists in our more rural parts of our State.
It is our hope that this legislation will be considered and enacted
this year.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend from
Maine, Senator Collins, to introduce the Dental Health Improvement Act.
This legislation will improve access to dental services by
strengthening the deal workforce in under-served areas.
While the scope of the dental access problem is very wide reaching,
this legislation takes an important step in the right direction by
improving the dental workforce in under-served areas.
According to the Surgeon General, an estimated 25 million Americans
live in areas lacking adequate dental care services, and as many as 11
percent of our Nation's rural population have never been to a dentist.
This problem will only get worse since more than 20 percent of
dentists will retire in the next 10 years, and the number of dental
graduates by 2015 may not be enough to replace these retirees. While
dentists have increased their productivity, they are still distribution
problems in specific geographic areas.
For too long, oral health has been overlooked and excluded from
important public policy discussions of how to improve health and health
care around the country. Some contend that oral health care has been a
lower priority because advances in dentistry--most notably the expanded
use of sealants and fluoridated water--are such that we are nearly a
``cavity free society.'' Yet the truth is that while oral health has
certainly improved dramatically among those who are insured, and those
who have reliable access to a dentist, there is a tragic disparity in
health status between the haves and the have nots.
This disparity between the poor and everyone else exists in general
medical health measures, such as infant mortality, low birth weight,
blood lead levels and so on. But what I have learned since I first
became interested in this issue is that the disparity is disturbingly
stark in oral health.
Surgeon General David Satcher framed this issue well at his May 2000
release of his report, Oral Health in America, that ``Tooth decay
remains the single most common chronic disease of childhood--five times
more common than asthma.''
While this fact is certainly true--that the prevalence of dental
disease remains high among children--its burden within the population
of US children has shifted dramatically.
I would like to make sure that my colleagues are aware of this
horrifying statistic that helps to outline the scope of the problem: 80
percent of dental disease is found in the poorest 25 percent of
children.
This figure helps to illustrate the broad scope of the problem. And
we all know that the problem is even more disturbing when we look at
the ways these vulnerable children suffer from lack of dental care.
Preschoolers living in poverty have twice the odds of having decaying
teeth, twice the extent of decay when they have disease, and twice the
pain experience of their most affluent peers.
These children are already at a disadvantage in so many ways. And
just
[[Page S5704]]
the most basic dental care could make a difference in their lives. But
our health care system allows this problem to fall through the cracks.
Over the past few years these and similar statistics have been
chronicled by numerous entities including the Surgeon General, the
General Accounting Office, and the National Institutes of Health.
This legislation will help strengthen the dental workforce that
delivers vital oral health care services by improving the workforce in
under-served areas. By providing States and communities with sufficient
flexibility to address the unique needs of their under-served areas, I
believe that this legislation will take an effective approach to
meeting the needs of communities in Wisconsin and across the Nation.
The first part of this legislation would establish a new State-based
grant program to help states explore innovative ideas for increasing
access to dental care in under-served areas.
This grant program would be directed through the Health Resources and
Services Administration at the Department of Health and Human Services
and support the efforts of States to develop and implement innovative
programs to address the dental workforce shortage that are appropriate
to their individual needs.
For example, States could tailor loan forgiveness and repayment
programs for dentists practicing in areas designated as dental health
professional shortage areas by either the Federal Government or the
State.
This program could also help with recruitment and retention efforts
by providing grants or low interest loans to help practitioners in
designated dental health professional shortage areas equip a dental
office or share in the overhead costs of an operation.
The second component of our legislation would increase participation
of the dental workforce in the National Health Service Corps.
According to the U.S. Surgeon General, the number of dentists and
dental hygienists with obligations to serve in the National Health
Service Corps falls far short of meeting the total identified need:
only about 6 percent of the dental need is currently being met by this
program, and outreach and development are critical to future
opportunities for strengthening the dental workforce in designated
under-served areas.
Our legislation would develop and implement a plan for increasing the
participation of dentists and dental hygienists in the National Health
Service Corps scholarship and loan repayment programs and report back
to Congress on their progress after three years.
This legislation follows a series of recommendations by the American
Dental Association and the American Dental Educators Association, who
both strongly support this legislation.
I hope my colleagues will join the Senator from Maine and me in our
ongoing efforts to increase access to dental care and promote greater
oral health.
We must change America's approach to oral health, especially when it
comes to some of the most vulnerable members of our communities--low
income children. These kids deserve quality dental care. Right now, too
many kids are suffering. It is my hope that Congress will work on a
bipartisan basis to promote greater oral health.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Thompson, and Mr.
Jeffords):
S. 972. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve
electric reliability, enhance transmission infrastructure, and to
facilitate access to the electric transmission grid; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that
will add stability to the Nation's electric power grid. I am pleased to
be joined by Senators, Breaux, Thompson, and Jeffords in this effort
that reflects a comprise that was reached last year by the investor
owned and municipal electric power generators. Identical legislation
has been introduced in the House, H.R. 1459.
In the past year, there has been a great deal of controversy over the
concept of electric deregulation because of the chaos that has occurred
in California. Unfortunately, California is not a useful model of a
deregulated environment because California only deregulated the
wholesale part of the industry while retaining price controls at the
retail level. Coupled with the State's failure to build new generation
in more than 10 years, the California model was bound to collapse.
However, I believe that the successes we have seen in deregulating
electricity, most notably in states like Pennsylvania, suggest that
ultimately the entire industry will be deregulated and consumers of
electric power will see significant benefits from such deregulation. In
order to facilitate the day when competition comes to the industry, we
must update the tax laws that were written in day when electricity was
a regulated utility.
One of the major problems that the current tax rules create is to
undermine the efficiency of the entire electric system in a deregulated
environment because these rules effectively preclude public power
entities from participating in State open access restructuring plans,
without jeopardizing the exempt status of their bonds.
No one wants to see bonds issued to finance public power become
retroactively taxable because a municipality chooses to participate in
a state open access plan. That would cause havoc in the financial
markets and could undermine the financial stability of many
municipalities.
Our legislation resolves this problem by allowing municipal systems
to elect to terminate the issuance of new tax exempt bonds for
generation facilities in return for grandfathering existing bonds.
Our bill also modifies current rules regarding the treatment of
nuclear decommissioning costs to make certain that utilities will have
the resources to meet future costs and clarifies the tax treatment of
the funds, if a nuclear facility is sold. The bill also provides tax
relief for utilities that spin off or sell transmission facilities to
independent participants in FERC approved regional transmission
organizations.
This bill will not resolve all of the tax issues surrounding the
deregulation of the industry. One participant in the industry, the tax-
exempt cooperatives also have tax problems associated with
deregulation--they may not participate in wheeling power through their
lines because of concern that they will violate the so-called 85-15
test which could endanger their tax exempt status. It is my hope that
the coops will sit down with the other utilities and reach an accord so
that when we consider this legislation, the coops will be included in
the tax bill.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
S. 973. A bill to expedite relief provided under the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act for commercial fishery failure
in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery, to improve fishery management
and enforcement in that fishery, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my good
friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, in introducing the
Pacific Coast Commercial Fishery Preservation Act of 2001.
The West Coast groundfish fishery is in crisis, and many fishermen
are facing bankruptcy. This legislation will help fishermen get through
the crisis, and move the fishery toward a more sustainable future.
Sustainable management of this resource is long overdue and in
January 2000, the Secretary of Commerce declared the West Coast
groundfish fishery a disaster. This bill will put the right number of
fishers out there, at the right time, catching the right number of
fish.
Catching the right number of fish should mean using the fish that are
caught. Fish that are caught in excess of a fisher's trip limit are
called ``regulatory discards'' or ``overages,'' and thousands of pounds
of fish are wasted every year when they are thrown overboard. This bill
authorizes fishermen to retain those extra fish and donate them to
charitable organizations.
The right number of fishers is key to a sustainable fishery. There
are currently too many fishers in the West Coast groundfish fishery to
sustain the resource. This bill authorizes the Secretary to administer
and implement a
[[Page S5705]]
capacity reduction or ``buyback'' plan to ease the transition to the
right number of fishers. In a survey distributed by the author of the
buyback plan, 70 percent of recipients completed and returned their
survey and a majority of them were interested in participating in the
buyback program. A buyback plan has been developed by Oregonians, in
consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Pacific
Fishery Management Council, and this bill incorporates key elements of
it.
This is not a Federal handout. Half the funding will come from the
industry and half from the Federal government. The industry portion
will be a government-backed loan which will be repaid by the fishers
who stay. The Secretary is authorized to enter into agreements in
California, Washington and Oregon to collect the fees that will be used
to repay the industry portion of the buyback fund.
Another way we seek to ease the transition away from fishing is
through reform of the Capital Construction Fund. Currently, the fund
allows fishers to put pre-tax funds aside for the construction of a new
boat, or for upgrading their old one. It was effective in building
America's fishing fleets, but in these days of dwindling stocks and
fisheries disasters it is crucial that the fisheries have an
alternative use for their money, such as retirement. This bill amends
the Merchant Marine Act and the Internal Revenue Code to allow funds
currently trapped in the Capital Construction Fund to be rolled over
into a retirement account without adverse consequences to either
taxpayers or the account holders.
Ultimately, sustainable fisheries are a result of government
regulation and management. When federal management fails, the
government has a responsibility to help fishers and their families in a
timely fashion. It has taken 18 months for the recent fishery disaster
funding to hit Oregon. When you are an out-of-work groundfisher, 18
months is way too long to wait. This bill requires the Secretary of
Commerce to recommend legislative or administrative changes to the
existing law that would enable disaster funding to reach fishers more
expeditiously.
This plan is supported by the West Coast Seafood Processors, the
Fishermen's Marketing Association, the Pacific Federation of Fishermen,
the Pacific Conservation Council, and the Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 973
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery Preservation Act''.
SEC. 2 PILOT PROJECT FOR CHARITABLE DONATION OF BYCATCH.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce shall initiate a
pilot project under which fishermen in a commercial fishery
covered by the West Coast groundfish fishery are permitted to
donate bycatch, or regulatory discards, of fish to charitable
organizations rather than discard them. The pilot project
shall incorporate a means, through the requirement of on-
vessel observers or other safeguards, of ensuring that the
opportunity to donate such fish does not encourage or permit
the evasion of pre-vessel trip limits, total allowable catch
limits, or other fishery management plan measures.
(b) Reports.--
(1) Initiation.--The Secretary shall notify the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, within 90
days after the date of enactment of this Act and before the
pilot project is implemented, of--
(A) the fishing season in which the pilot project will be
conducted; and
(B) the period during which the pilot project will be
conducted.
(2) Follow-up.--Within 90 days after the pilot project
terminates the Secretary shall submit to the Committee a
report containing findings with respect to the pilot project
and the Secretary's analysis of the ramifications of the
pilot project based on those findings.
SEC. 3. REPORT ON DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR PACIFIC COAST
GROUNDFISH FISHERY.
The Secretary shall report to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation no later than 45 days
after the date of enactment of this Act the action or actions
taken under section 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a(a)) to
provide disaster relief to fishing communities affected by
the commercial fishery failure in the Pacific Coast
groundfish fishery. The Secretary shall include in the report
any recommendations the Secretary deems appropriate for
additional legislation or changes in existing law that would
enable the Department of Commerce to respond more
expeditiously in the future to fisheries disasters resulting
from commercial fishery failures.
SEC. 4. CAPACITY REDUCTION IN THE PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH
FISHERY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce shall, after
notice and an opportunity for public comment, adopt
regulations to implement a fishing capacity reduction plan
for the Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery under section 312(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a(b)) that--
(1) has been developed in consultation with affected
parties whose participation in the plan is required for its
successful implementation;
(2) will obtain the maximum sustained reduction in fishing
capacity at the least cost through the use of a reverse
auction process in which vessels and permits are purchased;
(3) will not expand the size or scope of the commercial
fishery failure in that fishery or into other fisheries or
other geographic regions;
(4) except as otherwise specifically provided in this
section, meets the requirements of that section; and
(5) incorporates the components described in subsection (c)
of this section.
(b) Expedited Adoption of Plan.--In carrying out subsection
(a), the Secretary--
(1) shall publish notice in the Federal Register within 30
days after the date of enactment of this Act of
implementation of the fishing capacity reduction plan;
(2) provide for public comment for a period of 60 days
after publication; and
(3) adopt final regulations to implement the plan within 45
days after the close of the public comment period under
paragraph (2).
(c) Plan Components.--The fishery capacity reduction plan
shall--
(1) provide for a significant reduction in the fishing
capacity in the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries;
(2) permanently revoke all State and Federal fishery
licenses, fishery permits, area and species endorsements, and
any other fishery privileges for West Coast groundfish,
Pacific pink shrimp, Dungeness crab, and Pacific salmon
(troll permits only) issued to a vessel or vessels (or to
persons on the basis of their operation or ownership of that
vessel or vessels) for which a Pacific Coast groundfish
fisheries reduction permit is issued under section
600.1011(b) of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations;
(3) ensure that the Secretary of Transportation is notified
of each vessel for which a reduction permit is surrendered
and revoked under the program, with a request that such
Secretary permanently revoke the fishery endorsement of each
such vessel and refuse permission to transfer any such vessel
to a foreign flag under subsection (f) of this section;
(4) ensure that vessels removed from the Pacific Coast
groundfish fisheries under the program are made permanently
ineligible to participate in any fishery worldwide, and that
the owners of such vessels contractually agree that such
vessels will operate only under the United States flag or be
scrapped as a reduction vessel pursuant to section
600.1011(c) of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations;
(5) ensure that vessels removed from the Pacific Coast
groundfish fisheries, the owners of such vessels, and the
holders of fishery permits for such vessels forever
relinquish any claim associated with such vessel, permits,
and any catch history associated with such vessel or permits
that could qualify such vessel, vessel owner, or permit
holder for any present or future limited access system
fishing permits in the United States fisheries based on such
vessel, permits, or catch history; and
(6) notwithstanding section 1111(b) of the Merchant Marine
Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 1279f(b)(4)), establish a repayment
period for the reduction loan of not less than 30 years.
(d) Funding for Buyback of Vessels and Permits.--
(1) In general.--There shall be available to the Secretary
to complete the purchase of vessels and permits under the
fishery capacity reduction plan the sum of $50,000,000, of
which--
(A) $25,000,000 shall be from amounts appropriated to the
Secretary for this purpose (the appropriation of which is
hereby authorized for fiscal year 2002, with any amounts not
expended in fiscal year 2002 to remain available until
expended); and
(B) $25,000,000 shall be from an industry fee system
established under subsection (e).
(2) Advance of industry fee portion.--The industry fee
portion under paragraph (1)(B) for fiscal year 2002 and
thereafter shall be financed by a reduction loan under
sections 1111 and 1112 of title XI of the Merchant Marine
Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 1279f and 1279g).
(e) Industry Fees.--
(1) In general.--As part of the fishery capacity reduction
plan, the Secretary shall establish an industry fee system
under section 312(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a(d)) to
generate revenue to repay the loan provided under subsection
(d)(2).
(2) Allocation of fees.--The Secretary shall allocate the
fees payable under the industry fee system among--
[[Page S5706]]
(A) holders of Pacific Coast groundfish permits,
(B) holders of Washington, Oregon, and California pink
shrimp fishing permits,
(C) holders of Washington, Oregon, and California salmon
trolling permits, and
(D) holders of Washington, Oregon, and California Dungeness
crab fishing permits,
so that the percentage of the revenue generated by the fee
system from holders of each kind of permit will correspond to
the percentage of the total amount paid under buyback program
for that kind of permit.
(f) Duties of Secretary of Transportation.--
(1) The Secretary of Transportation shall, upon
notification and request by the Secretary, for each vessel
identified in such notification and request--
(A) permanently revoke any fishery endorsement issued to
such vessel under section 12108 of title 46, United States
Code; and
(B) refuse to grant the approval required under section
9(c)(2) of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 U.S.C. App. 808(c)(2))
for the placement of such vessel under foreign registry or
the operation of such vessel under the authority of a foreign
country.
(2) The Secretary shall, after notice and opportunity for
public comment, adopt final regulations not later than 6
months after the date of enactment of this Act, to prohibit
any vessel for which a reduction permit is surrendered and
revoked under the fishing capacity reduction program required
by this section from engaging in fishing activities on the
high seas or under the jurisdiction of any foreign country
while operating under the United States flag.
(g) Regulatory Flexibility.--Any requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or
any Executive order that would, in the opinion of the
Secretary, prevent the Secretary from meeting the deadlines
set forth in this section shall not apply to the fishing
capacity reduction program or the promulgation of regulations
to implement such program required by this section.
SEC. 5. COLLECTION OF INDUSTRY FEES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with the States of California, Oregon, and
Washington to collect program fees paid under the system
established under section 4(e).
(b) Withholding Fee From Purchase Price.--The fee for each
vessel required to pay a program fee under that system shall
be deducted by the first ex-vessel fish purchaser from the
proceeds otherwise payable to the seller and forwarded to the
appropriate State at the same time and in the same manner as
other fees or taxes are forwarded to that State.
(c) State To Collect and Forward Fees.--Upon receipt of
program fees forwarded by fish purchasers under subsection
(b), the State shall forward the fees to the Secretary in the
manner provided for in the agreement established under
subsection (a).
(d) Fish-Processing Vessels Treated as Purchasers.--A
vessel which--
(1) both harvests and processes fish; or
(2) receives fish from a harvesting vessel and processes
that fish on board, shall be considered to be the first ex-
vessel fish purchaser with respect to the fish processed
on the vessel and shall forward the appropriate fees to
the appropriate State at the same time and in the same
manner as other fees or taxes are forwarded to that State.
SEC. 6 AMENDMENT OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1936, TO EXPAND
PURPOSES OF CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND.
(a) In General.--Section 607(a) of the Merchant Marine Act,
1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 1177(a)) is amended by striking ``of
this section.'' and inserting ``of this section. Any
agreement entered into under this section may be modified for
the purpose of encouraging the sustainability of the
fisheries of the United States by making the termination and
withdrawal of a capital construction fund a qualified
withdrawal if done in exchange for the retirement of the
related commercial fishing vessel and related commercial
fishing permits.''.
(b) New Qualified Withdrawals.--
(1) Amendments to merchant marine act, 1936.--Section
607(f)(1) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App.
1177(f)(1)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``for:'' and inserting ``for--'';
(B) by striking ``vessel,'' in subparagraph (A) and
inserting ``vessel;'';
(C) by striking ``vessel, or'' in subparagraph (B) and
inserting ``vessel;'';
(D) by striking ``vessel.'' in subparagraph (C) and
inserting ``vessel;''; and
(E) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) the payment of an industry fee authorized by the
fishing capacity reduction program under section 312(b) of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(16 U.S.C. 1861a(b));
``(E) in the case of any such person or shareholder for
whose benefit such fund was established or any shareholder of
such person, a rollover contribution (within the meaning of
section 408(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) to
such person's or shareholder's individual retirement plan (as
defined in section 7701(a)(37) of such Code); or
``(F) the payment to a person or corporation terminating a
capital construction fund for whose benefit the fund was
established and retiring related commercial fishing vessels
and permits; and
(F) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) The Secretary by regulation shall establish
procedures to ensure that any person making a qualified
withdrawal authorized under subparagraph (F) retires the
related commercial use of fishing vessels and commercial
fishery permits.''.
(2) Amendments to internal revenue code of 1986.--Section
7518(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
purposes of qualified withdrawals) is amended--
(A) by striking ``for:'' and inserting
``for--'';
(B) by striking ``vessel, or'' in subparagraph (B) and
inserting ``vessel;'';
(C) by striking ``vessel.'' in subparagraph (C) and
inserting ``vessel;'';
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) the payment of an industry fee authorized by the
fishing capacity reduction program under section 312 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16
U.S.C. 1861a);
``(E) in the case of any person or shareholder for whose
benefit such fund was established or any shareholder of such
person, a rollover contribution (within the meaning of
section 408(d)(3)) to such person's or shareholder's
individual retirement plan (as defined in section
7701(a)(37)); or
``(F) the payment to a person terminating a capital
construction fund for whose benefit the fund was established
and retiring related commercial fishing vessels and
permits.''; and
(E) by adding at the end the following:
``The Secretary by regulation shall establish procedures to
ensure that any person making a qualified withdrawal
authorized by subparagraph (F) retires the related commercial
use of fishing vessels and commercial fishery permits.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to withdrawals made after the date of enactment
of this Act.
______
By Mr. JOHNSON:
S. 974. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for coverage of pharmacist services under part B of the
Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to introduce
legislation, known as the Medicare Pharmacist Services Coverage Act,
that will provide for important patient safety and health care quality
improvements in the Medicare program. This legislation will reform
Medicare by recognizing qualified pharmacists as health care providers
within the Medicare program and make available to beneficiaries
important drug therapy management services that these valuable health
professionals can and do provide. These services, which are coordinated
in direct collaboration with physicians and other health care
professionals as authorized by State law, help patients make the best
possible use of their medications.
The members of this body know very well the vital role that today's
powerful and effective medications play in the maintenance of health
and well-being of our nation's seniors. The substantial and important
discussion now underway on how best to craft and implement a
prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries is an explicit
recognition of this vital role. But access to the medications, even at
the most affordable prices possible, is only one part of the equation
in achieving the kinds of health care outcomes that patients and their
health care providers desire. That is where today's pharmacists play a
pivotal role.
But members of this body may not be as aware of the tremendous
changes in pharmacy practice and education that have taken place in the
past decade that have resulted in an expansion of pharmacists'
capabilities and responsibilities. Fortunately for my office Dr. Brian
Kaatz, a clinical pharmacist and faculty member of the College of
Pharmacy at South Dakota State University was able to spend 6 months
with us here in Washington last year as we studied and evaluated the
many policy issues and concerns related to a Medicare prescription drug
benefit. In the course of that time it became clear to me and to
members of my staff that pharmacists are critical in assuring safer and
more effective medication use by our nation's seniors.
In addition to the important and continuing responsibility for
assuring accurate, safe medication dispensing, compounding, and
counseling, pharmacists now provide a much more comprehensive range of
clinical, consultative, and educational services. Thirty States, the
Veterans Administration, and the Indian Health Service, among others,
all recognize the value of collaborative drug therapy management
services as a way to provide optimal
[[Page S5707]]
patient care using the specialized education and training of
pharmacists. Unfortunately, Medicare does not.
Indeed, payment for prescription drugs in almost all types of health
plans and programs focuses on payment for the product and the
associated costs of its distribution to patients. The logical financial
incentive therefore is to dispense more medications, not fewer. Payment
to the pharmacist for time spent in reducing the number of medications
the patient is taking or enhancing the patient's ability to understand
and more properly use the medications they do need is provided only by
some forward-thinking payers and programs. Unfortunately, Medicare is
not among them.
Access to pharmacists' collaborative drug therapy management services
is particularly important right now, while many Medicare beneficiaries
are struggling to pay substantial out-of-pocket costs for their
prescription medications. On average, persons aged 65 and older
currently take 5 or more medications each day. These medications are
often prescribed by several different physicians for concurrent chronic
and acute conditions. Recently published research has indicated that
drug-related problems cost the U.S. health care system as much as $177
billion each year, an amount equal to the ten-year cost projections for
some of the more modest Medicare prescription drug coverage proposals
now being discussed. A substantial portion of this expense is
preventable through collaborative patient care services provided by
pharmacists working with patients and their physicians.
With careful examination of a patient's total drug regimen,
pharmacists can eliminate unnecessary or counterproductive treatments.
For example, pharmacists working closely with the health care team can
identify or prevent duplicate medications, drugs that cancel each other
out, or combinations that can damage hearts or kidneys. Pharmacists may
also find that a newer multi-action drug may be exchanged for two older
drugs or a slightly more expensive drug may be substituted for a less
expensive alternative that causes side effects and results in the
patient either taking additional medication or stopping their
medication with the result that their medical condition worsens.
The overuse of medications is particularly common in the elderly, who
tend to have more chronic conditions that call for drug treatment. In
addition, physiological changes that occur naturally in the aging
process diminish the body's ability to process medications, increasing
the likelihood of medication-related complications.
The pharmacist's specialized training in drug therapy management has
been demonstrated repeatedly to improve the quality of care patients
receive and to control health care costs associated with medication
complications. As a precursor to a prescription drug benefit, it makes
sense to take this proven initial step to improve the medication use
process. This will help Medicare beneficiaries immediately by ensuring
that each precious dollar spent out-of-pocket is spent wisely on a
streamlined and effective drug therapy regimen. This is an important
benefit that we can deliver now while Congress works to address the
more difficult economic and political issues impacting a prescription
drug benefit.
In addition, the quality improvement and cost-control resulting from
this benefit establishes a critical infrastructure element for whatever
Medicare prescription drug benefit is ultimately put in place. By
supporting pharmacists who are working to improve the efficacy and
cost-effectiveness of medication regimens, as well as reducing
preventable medication-related complications and adverse drug events
that result in unnecessary health care expenditures, we can enhance the
prospects of achieving an affordable Medicare drug benefit that will
bring real value to beneficiaries and taxpayers alike.
Recognition of qualified pharmacists as providers within the Medicare
program is the logical and very affordable first step in establishing
the essential infrastructure of a Medicare prescription drug benefit.
As the Institute of Medicine report ``To Err is Human: Building a Safer
Health System'' stated: ``Because of the immense variety and complexity
of medications now available, it is impossible for nurses and doctors
to keep up with all of the information required for safe medication
use. The pharmacist has become an essential resource . . . and thus
access to his or her expertise must be possible at all times.'' This
legislation will empower Medicare to catch up on this important health
care quality issue. Pharmacists' collaborative drug therapy management
services can and will make a real difference in the lives of Medicare
beneficiaries. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
give this proposal their serious consideration.
______
By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Levin,
Mr. Specter, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Cleland, and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 975. A bill to improve environmental policy by providing
assistance for State and tribal land use planning, to promote improved
quality of life, regionalism, and sustainable economic development, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Community
Character Act of 2001, together with Senators Bennett, Specter,
Jeffords, Cleland, Levin, Bingaman, and Lieberman. This legislation
provides Federal assistance to States and Indian tribes to create or
update statewide or tribal land use planning legislation. Up-to-date
planning legislation empowers States and local governments to spur
economic development, protect the environment, coordinate
transportation and infrastructure needs, and preserve our communities.
America has grown from East to West, as well as from an urban setting
to suburban one. The Nation's sweeping growth can be attributed to many
things, including a strong economy and transportation and technology
advancements that allow people to live greater distances from work. Due
in part to inadequate planning, strip malls and retail development
catering to the automobile have become the trademark of the American
landscape.
In the wake of the post-World War II building boom, my hometown of
Warwick, RI had experienced the type of development that too often
offends the eye and saps our economic strength. Due to a lack of
planning, incremental and haphazard development occurred through a
mixture of incompatible zoning decisions. Industrial and commercial
facilities and residential homes were frequently and inappropriately
sited next to each other. The local newspaper described the city as a
``suburban nightmare''. However, we learned that proper approaches to
planning would help every state meet its challenges, whether it is
preserving limited open space in the East or protecting precious
drinking water supplies in the West.
The Community Character Act will benefit each community and
neighborhood by providing $25 million per year to States and tribes for
the purpose of land use planning. The bill recognizes that land use
planning is appropriately vested at the state and local levels, and
accords States and tribes flexibility in using their money.
Importantly, the legislation also recognizes that the Federal
Government should play a role in financing these activities. Through
enactment of transportation, housing, environmental, energy, and
economic development laws and requirements, Congress has created a
demand for state and local planning. In fact, the Community Character
Act should be viewed as providing the federal payment for an unfunded
mandate whose account is overdue.
The Senators who have sponsored this bill represent geographically
diverse states, from Rhode Island to New Mexico and from Georgia to
Utah. This bipartisan bill represents a small investment in our
communities, but one that will yield large dividends to communities in
each corner of the nation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a summary of the
bill, and letters of support for the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 975
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page S5708]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Community Character Act of
2001''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) inadequate land use planning at the State and tribal
levels contributes to--
(A) increased public and private capital costs for public
works infrastructure development;
(B) environmental degradation;
(C) weakened regional economic development; and
(D) loss of community character;
(2) land use planning is rightfully within the jurisdiction
of State, tribal, and local governments;
(3) comprehensive land use planning and community
development should be supported by Federal, State, and tribal
governments;
(4) States and tribal governments should provide a proper
climate and context through legislation in order for
comprehensive land use planning, community development, and
environmental protection to occur;
(5)(A) many States and tribal governments have outmoded
land use planning legislation; and
(B) many States and tribal governments are undertaking
efforts to update and reform land use planning legislation;
(6) the Federal Government and States should support the
efforts of tribal governments to develop and implement land
use plans to improve environmental protection, housing
opportunities, and socioeconomic conditions for Indian
tribes; and
(7) the coordination of use of State and tribal resources
with local land use plans requires additional planning at the
State and tribal levels.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Land use plan.--The term ``land use plan'' means a plan
for development of an area that recognizes the physical,
environmental, economic, social, political, aesthetic, and
related factors of the area.
(2) Land use planning legislation.--The term ``land use
planning legislation'' means a statute, regulation, executive
order, or other action taken by a State or tribal government
to guide, regulate, or assist in the planning, regulation,
and management of--
(A) environmental resources;
(B) public works infrastructure;
(C) regional economic development;
(D) current and future development practices; and
(E) other activities related to the pattern and scope of
future land use.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Economic Development.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means a State, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.
(5) Tribal government.--The term ``tribal government''
means the tribal government of an Indian tribe (as defined in
section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b)).
SEC. 4. GRANTS TO STATES AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS TO UPDATE
LAND USE PLANNING LEGISLATION.
(a) Establishment of Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program to
award grants to States and tribal governments eligible for
funding under subsection (b) to promote comprehensive land
use planning at the State, tribal, and local levels.
(2) Grant applications.--
(A) Submission.--A State or tribal government may submit to
the Secretary, in such form as the Secretary may require, an
application for a grant under this section to be used for 1
or more of the types of projects authorized by subsection
(c).
(B) Approval.--The Secretary shall--
(i) not less often than annually, complete a review of the
applications for grants that are received under this section;
and
(ii) award grants to States and tribal governments that the
Secretary determines rank the highest using the ranking
criteria specified in paragraph (3).
(3) Ranking criteria.--In evaluating applications for
grants from eligible States and tribal governments under this
section, the Secretary shall consider the following criteria:
(A) As a fundamental priority, the extent to which a State
or tribal government has in effect inadequate or outmoded
land use planning legislation.
(B) The extent to which a grant will facilitate development
or revision of land use plans consistent with updated land
use planning legislation.
(C) The extent to which development or revision of land use
plans will facilitate multistate land use planning.
(D) The extent to which the area under the jurisdiction of
a State or tribal government is experiencing significant
growth.
(E) The extent to which the project to be funded using a
grant will protect the environment and promote economic
development.
(F) The extent to which a State or tribal government has
committed financial resources to comprehensive land use
planning.
(b) Eligibility.--A State or tribal government shall be
eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a) if the State
or tribal government demonstrates that the project, or the
goal of the project, to be funded by the grant promotes land
use planning activities that--
(1) are comprehensive in nature and, to the maximum extent
practicable--
(A) promote environmental protection (including air and
water quality);
(B) take into consideration--
(i) public works infrastructure in existence at the time at
which the grant is to be made; and
(ii) future infrastructure needs, such as needs identified
in--
(I) the needs assessments required under sections 516(2)
and 518(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1375(2), 1377(b)) and subsections (h) and (i)(4) of
section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-
12); and
(II) the State long-range transportation plan developed
under section 135(e) of title 23, United States Code;
(C) promote sustainable economic development (including
regional economic development) and social equity;
(D) enhance community character;
(E) conserve historic, scenic, natural, and cultural
resources; and
(F) provide for a range of affordable housing options;
(2) promote land use plans that contain an implementation
element that--
(A) includes a timetable for action and a definition of the
respective roles and responsibilities of agencies, local
governments, and other stakeholders;
(B) is consistent with the capital budget objectives of the
State or tribal government; and
(C) provides a framework for decisions relating to the
siting of infrastructure development, including development
of utilities and utility distribution systems;
(3) result in multijurisdictional governmental cooperation,
to the maximum extent practicable, particularly in the case
of land use plans based on watershed boundaries;
(4) encourage the participation of the public in the
development, adoption, and updating of land use plans;
(5) provide for the periodic updating of land use plans;
and
(6) include approaches to land use planning that are
consistent with established professional land use planning
standards.
(c) Use of Grant Funds.--Grant funds received by a State or
tribal government under subsection (a) may be used for a
project--
(1) to carry out, or obtain technical assistance with which
to carry out--
(A) development or revision of land use planning
legislation;
(B) research and development relating to land use plans,
and other activities relating to the development of State,
tribal, or local land use plans, that result in long-term
policy guidelines for growth and development;
(C) workshops, education of and consultation with
policymakers, and participation of the public in the land use
planning process; and
(D) integration of State, regional, tribal, or local land
use plans with Federal land use plans;
(2) to provide funding to units of general purpose local
government to carry out land use planning activities
consistent with land use planning legislation; or
(3) to acquire equipment or information technology to
facilitate State, tribal, or local land use planning.
(d) Pilot Projects for Local Governments.--A State may
include in its application for a grant under this section a
request for additional grant funds with which to assist units
of general purpose local government in carrying out pilot
projects to carry out land use planning activities consistent
with land use planning legislation.
(e) Amount of Grants.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amount of a grant to a State or tribal government under
subsection (a) shall not exceed $1,000,000.
(2) Additional amount.--The Secretary may award a State up
to an additional $100,000 to fund pilot projects under
subsection (d).
(f) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of a project
funded with a grant under subsection (a) shall not exceed 90
percent.
(2) Grants to tribal governments.--The Secretary may
increase the Federal share in the case of a grant to a tribal
government if the Secretary determines that the tribal
government does not have sufficient funds to pay the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project.
(g) Audits.--
(1) In general.--The Inspector General of the Department of
Commerce may conduct an audit of a portion of the grants
awarded under this section to ensure that the grant funds are
used for the purposes specified in this section.
(2) Use of audit results.--The results of an audit
conducted under paragraph (1) and any recommendations made in
connection with the audit shall be taken into consideration
in awarding any future grant under this section to a State or
tribal government.
(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the
Department of Commerce shall submit to Congress a report that
provides a description of the management of the program
established under this section (including a description of
the allocation of grant funds awarded under this section).
[[Page S5709]]
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2002 through 2006.
(2) Availability for tribal governments.--Of the amount
made available under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, not
less than 5 percent shall be available to make grants to
tribal governments to the extent that there are sufficient
tribal governments that are eligible for funding under
subsection (b) and that submit applications.
SEC. 5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may develop voluntary
educational and informational programs for the use of State,
tribal, and local land use planning and zoning officials.
(b) Types of Programs.--Programs developed under subsection
(a) may include--
(1) exchange of technical land use planning information;
(2) electronic databases containing data relevant to land
use planning;
(3) other technical land use planning assistance to
facilitate access to, and use of, techniques and principles
of land use planning; and
(4) such other types of programs as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
(c) Consultation and Cooperation.--The Secretary shall
carry out subsection (a) in consultation and cooperation
with--
(1) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(2) the Secretary of Transportation;
(3) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(4) the heads of other Federal agencies;
(5) State, tribal, and local governments; and
(6) nonprofit organizations that promote land use planning
at the State, tribal, and local levels.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.
____
Community Character Act of 2001--Section-by-Section Summary
summary
The Community Character Act of 2001 seeks to provide much
needed funding to State and tribal governments for the
development and revision of land use planning tools. Up-to-
date statewide planning statutes and guidelines will allow
state and local governments to meet future growth demands
while preserving the economic, natural, cultural, and
historic resources of our communities.
section by section
Section 1
Short Title.--the Community Character Act of 2001.
Section 2
Provides Congressional findings regarding the benefits of
planning at the State, local, and tribal levels.
Section 3
Provides definitions of key terms in the legislation.
``Land use planning legislation'' is defined as a statute,
regulation, executive order or other action taken by a State
or tribal government to guide, regulate, or assist in the
planning, regulation, and management of environmental
resources, public works infrastructure, regional economic
development, and development practices and other activities
related to the pattern and scope of future land use.
Section 4
This section authorizes the Economic Development
Administration to establish a program to provide grants to
States and tribal governments on a competitive basis for the
development or revision of land use planning legislation.
States and tribal governments are eligible for grants if
their land use planning activities promotes certain elements,
such as environmental protection, public works
infrastructure, and sustainable economic development.
States and tribes that receive these grants may use them to
develop or revise land use planning legislation, conduct
research and development relating to land use plans, or
funding to local governments to carry out land use planning
activities consistent with state planning legislation. This
section also provides for local government pilot projects
related to land use planning.
The bill provides $25 million each year for fiscal years
2002-2006 and caps grants at $ 1 million ($1.1 million if
funding local pilot projects), subject to a 10 percent match.
Five percent of the annual authorization is set aside for
tribal governments to the extent that there are sufficient
eligible applications.
Section 5
This section authorizes the Economic Development
Administration to provide voluntary educational and
informational programs for the use of State, local, and
tribal land use planning and zoning officials. The bill
authorizes $1 million per year for five years for this
purpose.
____
American Planning Association,
Washington, DC, May 24, 2001.
Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Chafee: The American Planning Association is
pleased to endorse the Community Character Act of 2001. APA
is heartened by the introduction of this legislation and the
assistance it would provide to the numerous states and
communities struggling with the consequences of change,
whether it be growth and development or economic decline.
This legislation recognizes that the federal government can,
and should, be a constructive partner with those communities
seeking innovative solutions to improving local quality of
life through better planning and land use. APA, with more
than 30,000 members, is the largest private organization
working to promote planning for communities that effectively
meets the needs of our people, now and in the future.
Planning is the single most effective way to deal with
growth issues facing states and communities. Passage of the
Community Character Act is among the most important and
beneficial things Congress could do to help promote local
solutions to such pressing issues as downtown revitalization,
traffic congestion, urban sprawl and open space protection.
This legislation responds to widespread citizen interest in
smart growth by providing critical resources to help state
and local political leaders, business and environmental
interests, and others manage change. In a recent national
voter survey, APA found that an overwhelming majority of
Americans, regardless of political affiliation, geographic
locale, or demographic group, believe Congress should take
action to support state and local smart growth initiatives.
Seventy-eight percent of those surveyed believe it is
important for the 107th Congress to help communities solve
problems associated with urban growth. Moreover, three-
quarters of voters also support providing incentives to help
promote smart growth and improve planning.
The Community Character Act provides vital assistance to
meet the serious challenge of reforming outdated planning
statutes and supporting planning as the basis for smart
growth. Currently, more than half the states are still
operating under planning statutes devised in the 1920s. And,
even in those states with updated planning laws, communities
are struggling to find and implement tools to grow smarter
and in ways consistent with the values and vision of the
citizens. Thus far in 2001, twenty-seven governors have
initiated some type smart growth proposals and there is
pending legislative or executive activity related to
planning, growth and land use in twenty-two states. This if
happening in states as diverse as Oklahoma and New York,
Montana and Massachusetts.
We believe this bill will support an array of state,
regional and local efforts to promote improved quality of
life, economic development and community livability through
better planning. Grants could be used to obtain technical
assistance and support for a state's review and
implementation of growth and planning laws. Activities such
as researching and drafting state policies, conducting
workshops, holding public forums, promoting regional
cooperation and supporting state planning initiatives would
qualify for federal assistance. We also believe provisions
allowing grants for acquiring new information technology to
facilitate planning, pilot projects to support innovative
planning at the local level and the development of technical
assistance programs through the Economic Development
Administration would provide important and needed assistance
for local governments and communities.
This legislation promotes smart growth principles and
encourages states to create or update the framework necessary
for good planning. It creates a federal partnership with
communities through incentives, not mandates. The bill does
not mandate that states implement specific changes but rather
seeks to support and inform that process once it is underway.
This program is a modest investment that will bring
substantial dividends in improving the livability of cities,
towns, and neighborhoods throughout the nation.
The American Planning Association applauds your outstanding
leadership and vision in introducing the Community Character
Act and urges the Senate to enact this legislation.
Sincerely,
Bruce McClendon,
President.
____
National Association of Realtors,
Washington, DC, May 24, 2001.
Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Chafee: On behalf of its more than 760,000
members, the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS (NAR)
supports your introduction of the Community Character Act,
which provide grants to assist state governments in
developing or updating their land use planning legislation.
NAR supports this bill because it:
Recognizes that land use planning is rightfully a State and
local government function;
Provides needed assistance to states and localities to
better plan for inevitable growth;
Requires that planning performed under this Act must
provide for housing opportunity and choice and promote
affordable housing;
Promotes improved quality of life, sustainable economic
development, and protection of the environment.
In adopting our Smart Growth principles, NAR recognized
that property owners, homebuyers, and REALTORS have
a great deal
[[Page S5710]]
at stake in the debate over livability and growth.
REALTORS are outspoken advocates for policies that
preserve housing choice and affordability while protecting
and improving the quality of the life of our communities.
It is our experience that when communities have not planned
for growth, they may overreact to growth pressures by
adopting excessive regulations that distort real estate
markets and make homeownership less attainable. Planning in
advance to accommodate growth and protect the quality of life
is the better approach, and the Community Character Act would
promote this needed planning.
We commend your efforts in introducing the Community
Character Act and we look forward to working with you toward
its adoption.
Sincerely,
Lee L. Verstandig,
Senior Vice President.
____
The Trust for Public Land,
Washington, DC, May 24, 2001.
Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
Chair Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk
Assessment, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Senate Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Chafee: I am writing to advise you of the
Trust for Public Land's unqualified support for the Community
Character Act of 2001.
The legislation you are introducing today will provide
communities across the nation with an important and adaptive
new tool to address the land-use challenges they face. More
than ever, states and localities are seeking innovative ways
to balance their economic development and environmental
protection needs. The Community Character Act will provide
much-needed support to the many state and local jurisdictions
working to craft this vital balance through their land-use
planning processes. This visionary bill aptly recognizes the
inextricable links between public infrastructure, private
development, and open space preservation, and its
competitive-grant approach will allow for appropriate
incentive-based federal assistance to state and local
planning efforts. The Trust for Public Land particularly
appreciates the on-the-ground successes your legislation will
spawn through local pilot projects; the inclusion of tribal
governments as eligible grant recipients, and the benefits
these funds will afford to Indian land management; and the
broader effects that enhanced land-use planning will bring to
the American landscape.
We look forward to timely enactment of the Community
Character Act, and to hearing from you as to how we might be
of assistance in your efforts.
Sincerely,
Alan Front,
Senior Vice President.
____
Smart Growth America,
Washington, DC, May 24, 2001.
Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Chafee: Smart Growth America would like to
commend you on the introduction of the Community Character
Act of 2001. We support both the bill and your efforts to
assist states, multi-state regions and tribal governments in
their efforts to revise their land use planning legislation
and develop comprehensive plans.
Planning for future growth and directing development so
that it strengthens existing communities while building upon
their physical, cultural and historical assets is integral to
smart growth. We applaud your foresight and willingness to
help these entities in their ongoing efforts to achieve smart
growth by coordinating transportation, housing and education
infrastructure investments while conserving historic, scenic
and natural resources.
The Community Character Act makes the federal government a
partner with states, regions and tribal governments that want
to plan for future growth. We thank you for your leadership
and look forward to working with you to pass this timely
legislation.
Sincerely,
Don Chen,
Director.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 976. A bill to provide authorization and funding for the
enhancement of ecosystems, water supply, and water quality of the State
of California, to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday Congressman Ken Calvert from
Riverside, CA, and I held a press conference so each of us could
introduce a bill, Mr. Calvert in the House and I in the Senate.
This bill I am going to introduce today for reference to committee
addresses a very complicated and complex problem in California, and
that is water. It is my very strong belief that the energy crisis that
we see taking place in California is a forerunner of what is going to
happen with water.
The only question is when. California has a population of 34 million
people. It is bigger than 21 other States and the District of Columbia
put together. It is expected to grow to 50 million in 20 years.
Our State has the same water infrastructure that it had in 1970 when
we were about 16 million people, and every year California grows from
700,000 to 1 million people. It was 800,000 this past year.
We are the sixth largest economy, not in the Nation, but in the
world. We are the No. 1 agricultural producing State in the Nation. We
are the leading producer of dairy products, wine and grapes,
strawberries, almonds, lettuce, tomatoes, and the list goes on and on.
All of these need water.
We are a growing high-tech State with an increasing need for access
to high-quality water. We have more endangered species than any other
State except Hawaii. And, of course, California, again, has this large
population. Our water needs are tremendous. So we need to get ready for
the future, and we need to do this in an environmentally sensitive way.
If there is one lesson we can learn from California's energy crisis,
it is that the time to address a crisis is not while it is happening
but before it happens. California is now struggling to build more
powerplants while also doing everything possible to reduce demand
through increased efficiency and conservation. But because we started
so late, we are likely going to have some serious problems this summer,
and that is why it is even more important that we fix the water problem
before it, too, becomes a crisis.
Ecosystem restoration, water conservation, and improved efficiency
can be combined with new environmentally responsible off-stream
storage. This would allow us to improve the ecosystem and store water
from the wet years and use it in the dry years to benefit people, the
environment, and farmers.
I began writing this bill last December with the aim of finding
something to which all of the major stakeholders could agree--the large
urban water users, the city of San Jose, the city of Los Angeles, San
Diego, San Francisco, all of the agricultural water contractors, and a
myriad of environmental leaders.
I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible, after 7 years of
trying, to get them all on the same page, let alone the same line. So
either we do nothing and sit back and wait for a water crisis or we try
to do the moderate, the prudent, and the effective thing.
The bill I am sending to the desk for reference to committee is a 7-
year authorization bill. It essentially authorizes the record of
decision of a program known as CALFED. In California, there are two big
water projects. One is the Central Valley Water Project owned by the
Federal Government. That is the Federal interest. The Federal
Government built it and owns it. The other is the California Water
Project owned by the State of California, built by Governor Pat Brown
back in the 1960s.
This is, in essence, a State-Federal effort to improve the water
infrastructure, to clean up the ecosystems, and to begin to build an
infrastructure that can handle the demands of the next 50 years.
The bill authorizes the ecosystem restoration program, and it fully
authorizes all of the environmental projects listed in the record of
decision. This includes improving fish passages, restoring streams,
rivers, and habitats, and improving water quality.
The bill authorizes 580,000 acre feet of water in the first year
through the environmental water account, and the bill essentially
authorizes the first three storage projects, off-stream water storage,
listed in stage 1 of the record of decision: Enlarging the Los Vaqueros
Reservoir, subject to a vote of the people of Contra Costa County;
raising Shasta Dam; and constructing the delta wetlands project which
involves flooding two delta islands for storage and using the other two
islands for ecosystem protection. The end result of these three storage
projects will be 2.3 million acre feet of new water storage.
Some reporting and financial analysis must still be completed. CALFED
expects these projects will have no adverse impacts, so we need to get
started to make sure they can get in the line and get going.
[[Page S5711]]
I do not believe we can meet all of our future water needs without
increased water storage, water storage that is environmentally benign,
that is off stream, and that provides flexibility in the system for us
to increase water supply, improve water quality, and enhance ecosystem
restoration.
Recharging groundwater, water recycling and reuse, conservation, and
smarter use of the big pumps in the system are all tools we can use to
help us meet our water needs.
I am concerned this may not even be enough. We live in an area,
though, where large new dams are extraordinarily controversial. So
there is one thing left, and that is to take water from the wet years
and store it in an environmentally sound way to use during the dry
years.
The bill I am presenting is balanced. It says, in essence, that the
storage projects go ahead at the same time as the environmental
projects. I believe very strongly that we are not going to be able to
solve the problem just with environmental measures, that we need
additional water storage as well.
This is not a flash in the pan. I did not just arrive at this. A
native-born Californian, I have watched this for years and years, and
for the last 7 years in the Senate I have spent an enormous amount of
time--probably 50, 60 meetings--with the stakeholders on all sides of
this issue. It is my judgment that we must have this additional storage
in addition to the ecosystems work.
It is not going to be a perfect bill. It is a big bill. It is a
State-Federal partnership. In my view, water and energy are the two
essentials that can keep the California economy alive and keep its
people flourishing. I hope it will have a favorable response in the
committee and in this Chamber.
______
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Burns, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Cantwell,
Mr. Conrad, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Johnson,
and Mrs. Murray):
S. 977. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to
require the Secretary of Agriculture to make nonrecourse marketing
assistance loans and loan deficiency payments available to producers of
dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Dry Pea,
Lentil, and Chickpea Marketing Assistance Loan Act,'' a bill to
authorize a marketing loan program and loan deficiency payments, or
LDPs, for pulse crops which include peas, lentils, and chickpeas. I am
pleased that Senators Burns, Baucus, Cantwell, Conrad, Crapo, Daschle,
Dorgan, Johnson and Murray have joined as original cosponsors.
Pulses are grown across the northern tier of the United States.
Traditionally pulses have been grown as a rotation crop that provides
benefit to the soil, by fixing nitrogen, breaking weed and disease
cycles, and reducing the need for field burning. Dryland farmers in
northern Idaho for years have rotated wheat, canola, and dry peas,
lentils or chickpeas. As prices have dropped for all commodities,
including pulses, we have seen a shift in production patterns which
have decreased the production of dry peas and lentils.
Current wheat prices are no better than dry pea prices, pound for
pound, but a banker will lend money to a grower of wheat and oilseeds
because there is a loan program and LDP. The depressed markets have
forced dryland farmers across the northen tier of the United States to
abandon pulses in favor of traditional farm program crops like wheat,
oilseeds, and barley.
This bill attempts to remedy this situation by creating a loan rate
for dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas with support equivalent to the
loan programs for spring wheat and canola. The bill mirrors existing
statutory authority for the loan programs established for other crops
by creating floor prices based from 85 percent of a five-year Olympic
average. The approximate cost of the bill, and benefits to pulse
growers, would be about $8.5 million annually.
When we passed the last farm bill, the goal was to have farmers farm
the land and not the programs. As prices have dropped, we are again
seeing planting decisions made based on the programs available, which
has made pulse crops less attractive in a rotation. As we begin the
process of reauthorizing the farm bill, we will work to make sure that
pulses are included so that farmers will be competitive with other
crops grown in the area.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of this
amendment to the Agricultural Market Transition Act. It would require
the Secretary of Agriculture to make nonrecourse marketing assistance
loans and loan deficiency payments available to producers of dry peas,
lentils, and chickpeas.
This amendment will go a long way toward giving producers of these
commodities an equal opportunity to obtain the same financial
opportunities as other producers now receive.
We encourage our producers to grow what is often referred to as
alternative crops. Producers have listened and they are successfully
marketing these crops. The actions of this bill will now provide these
innovative producers with the same economic benefits as producers of
other crops. These farmers have dared to try something different and
the least we can do is support them for they're daring.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation.
______
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Allard, Mr.
Bennett, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Smith of
Oregon, and Mr. Thomas):
S. 978. A bill to provide for improved management of, and increased
accountability for, outfitted activities by which the public gains
access to and occupancy and use of Federal land, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today in
conjunction with my colleagues, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Allard, Mr. Bennett,
Mr. Campbell, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Stevens,
and Mr. Thomas, the Outfitter Policy Act of 2001.
This legislation is very similar to legislation I introduced in past
congresses. As that legislation did, this bill would put into law many
of the management practices by which Federal land management agencies
have successfully managed the outfitter and guide industry on National
Forests, National Parks and other Federal lands over many decades.
The bill recognizes that many Americans want and seek out the skills
and experience of commercial outfitters and guides to help them enjoy a
safe and pleasant journey.
The Outfitter Policy Act's primary purpose is to ensure accessibility
to public lands by all segments of the population and maintain the
availability of quality recreation services to the public. Outfitters
and guides across the nation provide opportunities for outdoor
recreation for many families and groups who would otherwise find the
backcountry inaccessible.
Previous hearings and discussions on prior versions of this
legislation helped to refine the bill I am introducing today. This
process provided the intended opportunity for discussion. As well as it
allowed for the examination of the historical practices that have
offered consistent, reliable outfitter services to the public.
Congress has twice addressed this issue with respect to the National
Park System permits, originally establishing standards for Park Service
administration of guide/outfitter permits on their lands in 1965 and
amending that system in 1998. Therefore, it is appropriate to set
similar legislative standards for other public land systems such as
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. However, these and
other land management agencies are now without Congressional guidance,
and instead rules, permit terms and conditions and other intricacies
are often left to local agency personnel. The Outfitter Policy Act
would alleviate the discord involved in land management permitting,
providing consistent guidance on the administration of guide/outfitter
permits for the other Federal land management agencies.
The Outfitter Policy Act provides the basic terms and conditions
necessary to sustain the substantial investment often needed to provide
the level of service demanded by the public. However, the bill provides
the agencies
[[Page S5712]]
ample flexibility to adjust use, conditions, and permit terms. All of
which must be consistent with agency management plans and policies for
resource conservation. The Outfitter Policy Act strives to provide a
stable, consistent regulatory climate which encourages qualified
entrants to the guide/outfitting business, while giving the agencies
and operators clear directions.
The Outfitter Policy Act is a measure that will facilitate access to
public lands by the outfitted public, while providing incentives to
outfitters to provide the high quality services over time. It is
necessary to ensure that members of the public who need and rely on
guides and outfitters for recreational access to public lands will
continue to receive safe, quality services. I look forward to
considering this legislation in the coming session of the 107th
Congress.
____________________